In defense of the United Nations

from JoeUser Forums

In Defense of The United Nations
http://sandy2.joeuser.com

OK. I am defending the United Nations regarding the oil for food program. I admit, there was a scandal. Kofi Anan, and other people in the administration made mistakes. But he needn't resign for this. I mean, come on, we all make mistakes, and I would think that just looking at the United States it would be clear that scandals are commonplace. I recently read an article appearing in US News and World Report regarding these "terrible" scandals, and criticizing Anan's son. (The article is available at http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/041220/opinion/20edit.htm.) Let us look to the Bush family for a scandal close to home. George Dubyas brother was convicted of fraud and other charges stemming from his theft of millions of dollars in a deal that I don't quite remember the details of, but if anyone presses my I can uncover them. Further, lets take a look to the past and see a Clinton Scandal, a Reagan scandal, a Nixon scandal... need I go further? And people complain of how the United Nations did this to make money. Well maybe, just maybe, if countries such as the United States would pay their dues, then the United Nations would not have to stoop to such levels to cover their expenses. It is hypocrisy again to hold this against the United Nations.
-Note- I know this is one of my less coherent, less throughout articles, but it is late and i'm sick, so please forgive me. I wanted to get this off my chest after reading the article. i will try to fix it up tommarow. Happy holidays everyone.

politics
8,439 views 17 replies
Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top
I think the fact that we provide the security, the land and built the place should be enough of our dues.

The scandal is acutally aimed at his son, not the Sec Gen. Still no word from the administration about Halliburton's connection to the scandal.
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
A litany of scandals does litle credit to the United Nations. Yes, it completely failed the people of Iraq by abetting the imposition of the most brutal regime of sanctions after the I st Gulf War. It little to destabalise Saddam and his gang, but nearly 1.5 children died during the course of i decade because paracetamol for children was put on the proscribed list. Kofi Annan is a black man willing to be used by the Anglo Saxons for killing Iraqis and deserves little sympathy. The Americans used him and now that he is expendable want to dump him I say amen to that because he hardly has any credibility left.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

You're right that the United States isn't angelic either, but that does not excuse the corruption in the United Nations. In fact, when you consider that it's supposed to be "better" than the United States (just as the United States is supposed to be better than Saddam Hussein), it's intolerable that such scandals take place.


If the scandal occurred under Kofi Anan's clock, then he should resign. Just like many want Rumsfield to resign because of his incompetence and his condonation of corruption, Anan too should not be tolerated if he's incompetent and/or corrupt.


Well maybe, just maybe, if countries such as the United States would pay their dues, then the United Nations would not have to stoop to such levels to cover their expenses. It is hypocrisy again to hold this against the United Nations.


Perhaps, but I seriously doubt that concern of preserving the United Nations was a factor. I'm positive greed was the prime motivator. Besides, the end does not justify the means, just like it didn't with the torture at Abu Gharib, even though we had "humanitarian" motives.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

By: sandy2
Posted: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 on Independent Left leaning Rants and Raves
Message Board: Politics

In Defense of The United Nations
http://sandy2.joeuser.com

OK. I am defending the United Nations regarding the oil for food program. I admit, there was a scandal. Kofi Anan, and other people in the administration made mistakes. But he needn't resign for this. I mean, come on, we all make mistakes, and I would think that just looking at the United States it would be clear that scandals are commonplace. I recently read an article appearing in US News and World Report regarding these "terrible" scandals, and criticizing Anan's son. (The article is available at http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/041220/opinion/20edit.htm.) Let us look to the Bush family for a scandal close to home. George Dubyas brother was convicted of fraud and other charges stemming from his theft of millions of dollars in a deal that I don't quite remember the details of, but if anyone presses my I can uncover them. Further, lets take a look to the past and see a Clinton Scandal, a Reagan scandal, a Nixon scandal... need I go further? And people complain of how the United Nations did this to make money. Well maybe, just maybe, if countries such as the United States would pay their dues, then the United Nations would not have to stoop to such levels to cover their expenses. It is hypocrisy again to hold this against the United Nations.
-Note- I know this is one of my less coherent, less throughout articles, but it is late and i'm sick, so please forgive me. I wanted to get this off my chest after reading the article. i will try to fix it up tommarow. Happy holidays everyone.


Oil for food is only one of the problems facing SecGen Annan.

Link

Link

Link

Link

There are tons more. I just decided this was enough for a start.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top


Reply #3 By: Bahu Virupaksha - 12/23/2004 1:15:47 AM

A litany of scandals does litle credit to the United Nations. Yes, it completely failed the people of Iraq by abetting the imposition of the most brutal regime of sanctions after the I st Gulf War. It little to destabalise Saddam and his gang, but nearly 1.5 children died during the course of i decade because paracetamol for children was put on the proscribed list. Kofi Annan is a black man willing to be used by the Anglo Saxons for killing Iraqis and deserves little sympathy. The Americans used him and now that he is expendable want to dump him I say amen to that because he hardly has any credibility left.


If your going to talk this kind of BS provide a backup for it
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
I would also like to point out the fact that if Donald does not have to resign as Sec. Defense even though he messed up BIG TIME, then why should an elected leader resign? I would also like to point out to whoman69 that we do not provide the secuirty, we did not provide the land and we did not build their headquarters. The land was donated by the Rockefeller family. The security is proivded by United Nations Security Forces, it is international territory which does not fall under US rule, nor US law, nor US protection, and it was built with money paid for by the United Nations. You should not speak on something of which you know nothing of.
Reply #8 from PolMach Forums Top
I would also like to point out the fact that if Donald does not have to resign as Sec. Defense even though he messed up BIG TIME, then why should an elected leader resign? I would also like to point out to whoman69 that we do not provide the secuirty, we did not provide the land and we did not build their headquarters. The land was donated by the Rockefeller family. The security is proivded by United Nations Security Forces, it is international territory which does not fall under US rule, nor US law, nor US protection, and it was built with money paid for by the United Nations. You should not speak on something of which you know nothing of.


Ok, do they pay property taxes for that prime land? Certainly the Rockefellers can't make this international land on their own, its on US soil. Additionally, we have supplied the forces for a good many of their projects like Korea, Yugoslavia and many more. We contribute plenty to the UN.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

I would also like to point out the fact that if Donald does not have to resign as Sec. Defense even though he messed up BIG TIME, then why should an elected leader resign?


Because, if the United Nations is not going to act any better than the United States, then why should anybody think it more noble than the United States and its interests?

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Personally I would be surprised if Kofi was personally involved in any of the scandal.

That said however I believe that he should have a level of responsibility for major scandals that occur under his watch. If the enquiry shows that there was a failure of senior management to do their jobs (such as supervising those below them) then I do believe that Kofi should leave for the good of the UN. . I personally find it very hard to see how Kofi could remain as head of the UN if it is shown that he totally failed to keep an eye on such an important and crucial project. He may indeed be shown to be innoncent of any wrongdoing, but unless there is clear proof that he actively tried to keep an eye on the project and the people running it then he should leave. I would expect no less from an MD of a large company or a chairman of the board.

Sadly the current American way seems to be to shift blame to underlings and not have anyone at a senior level take responsibility for management failure (both politically and business). I hope the UN does not follow this route because I do expect more from them than from the US. So Kofi either needs to show he did his job properly but was consistently lied to, or he needs to admit he failed to do his job (wich includes hiring the right people) and resign.

Paul
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #10 By: Solitair - 12/23/2004 5:13:47 PM
Personally I would be surprised if Kofi was personally involved in any of the scandal.

That said however I believe that he should have a level of responsibility for major scandals that occur under his watch. If the enquiry shows that there was a failure of senior management to do their jobs (such as supervising those below them) then I do believe that Kofi should leave for the good of the UN. . I personally find it very hard to see how Kofi could remain as head of the UN if it is shown that he totally failed to keep an eye on such an important and crucial project. He may indeed be shown to be innoncent of any wrongdoing, but unless there is clear proof that he actively tried to keep an eye on the project and the people running it then he should leave. I would expect no less from an MD of a large company or a chairman of the board.

Sadly the current American way seems to be to shift blame to underlings and not have anyone at a senior level take responsibility for management failure (both politically and business). I hope the UN does not follow this route because I do expect more from them than from the US. So Kofi either needs to show he did his job properly but was consistently lied to, or he needs to admit he failed to do his job (wich includes hiring the right people) and resign.

Paul


Guilty as charged my good man. You do realize that *his son* is also part of this?
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
The problem here is that the USA is making the UN out to be worse than it. The worst scandal here is the scandal of the United States fabricating evidence to go to war with Iraq. It doesn't matter if it was Bush, but then by the reasoning here he should be held responsible and should step down. And the UN seems right now to be better.. because I didn't see them invading Iraq.

Whoman-
The federal government of the United States does not collect a property tax...so I don't know where you are coming from. And we do send troops.. you seem to misunderstand me.. I did not say that we do not provide help.. I said that we do not pay the dues that every other country pays.. kind of sad considering we started the UN.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #12 By: sandy2 - 12/24/2004 10:19:51 AM
I said that we do not pay the dues that every other country pays.. kind of sad considering we started the UN.


And you would be wrong on that.


The United Nations Debt: Who Owes Whom?
by Cliff Kincaid

Gogle search "united nations united states dues". Cliff Kincaid, a veteran journalist, is author of "The United Nations Debt: Who Owes Whom?" recently published by the Cato Institute.

Last month it was revealed that the Clinton administration had sent $200,000 to the United Nations as "seed money" to help the UN put together a "standby" peacekeeping army. Your elected representatives didn't vote to spend the money that way. It wasn't money set aside by Congress for UN peacekeeping support. Rather, the White House "reprogrammed" money that had been appropriated by Congress for another purpose.

Furthermore, the contribution wasn't even credited against the billion-dollar "debt" that the United States supposedly owes the United Nations. In fact, it's just one of the many instances in which the Clinton administration has diverted billions of dollars from various federal agencies, especially the Department of Defense, to the UN. And virtually none of this support has been credited against the alleged U.S. debt.

Despite the fact that news articles routinely discuss the U.S. debt to the United Nations, no such debt exists. Assertions about this nonexistent debt ignore the billions of dollars of military and other assistance that has been provided to the world organization but neither properly credited nor reimbursed to the United States; they divert attention from the administration's policy of providing resources, personnel and equipment to the UN without the approval of Congress.

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), a member of the House National Security Committee, is doing his best to end this diversion of taxpayer money. Thanks to his work, Congress is now fully aware of administration attempts to usurp the legislative branch's constitutional role. Bartlett wants to prevent payment of any "debt" to the UN until all U.S. assistance to the world body is accounted for in the U.S.-UN financial relationship. He also wants the administration to quit the practice of providing the UN "voluntary" assistance worth billions of dollars without congressional approval.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The United States paid more than $11 billion for international peacekeeping efforts between 1992 and 1997.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Clinton administration insists that Congress has an obligation to pay most -- but not all -- of the money the UN demands. It says the figure is close to $1 billion. True, Congress has withheld some money from the UN: some members believe we are being overcharged, and others want to force UN reform. But it's also true that the administration has been diverting additional billions of dollars to assist the UN without asking it to credit them against our "dues."

Bartlett cites a Congressional Research Service report that found that the United States paid more than $11 billion for international peacekeeping efforts between 1992 and 1997. Although the report didn't specify how much of that money had been counted as U.S. "dues" to the UN, the figure could be as low as $1.8 billion. That leaves about $9 billion worth of what the administration calls "voluntary" international peacekeeping assistance. But the $9 billion only covers assistance provided by the Department of Defense. Other federal agencies have also been ordered by the administration to support the UN, bringing the sum of uncredited payments to perhaps $15 billion.

The $1.8 billion figure counted as U.S. "dues" to the world body derives from a 1996 General Accounting Office report on U.S. costs in support of UN-authorized "peace operations" in places like Haiti, Somalia and Rwanda during the previous three years. The figure represents the State Department's share of the costs of those operations. That is the budget from which the U.S. share of UN peacekeeping operations has traditionally been funded. Overall, the GAO found that the costs reported by U.S. government agencies for support of UN operations in those areas of the world was over $6.6 billion and that the UN had reimbursed the U.S. $79.4 million "for some of these costs." That leaves about $4.8 billion in what the administration calls "voluntary" assistance to the world body.

By refusing to pay the UN "debt," Congress would not only put a stop to the improper if not illegal practice of misappropriating funds to the UN; it would also acquire additional leverage for forcing tough reforms on that body. The latest UN scandal, uncovered by the New Yorker magazine, is that in 1994 Secretary General Kofi Annan, then director of peacekeeping, ordered UN troops in Rwanda not to intervene to stop a planned genocide campaign that took half a million lives. Annan, a veteran UN bureaucrat, has reacted to the controversy over his role in the genocide by blaming the United States for not doing more to save lives. It appears that much of our "voluntary" assistance to the UN for peacekeeping missions has been wasted.

U.S. Ambassador to the UN Bill Richardson insists that if Congress demands reimbursement or credit for all of this assistance, the UN might go bankrupt. In fact, the organization has accumulated a $15.5 billion pension fund; it even continues to pay a $102,000 annual pension to former secretary general Kurt Waldheim, who was exposed as a Nazi war criminal.

The United Nations won't go broke. Whether it should is another question
HOT TOPICS House Approves $582 Million Back Dues Payment to U.N. (Members say terrorist threat made action more urgent) Author: Ralph Dannheisser September 25, 2001 Text: Washington File Congressional Correspondent Washington -- The House of Representatives has approved a measure that clears the way for payment of $582 million in back dues to the United Nations - the second of three payments that the United States has pledged to clear up its acknowledged debt. The legislation passed by voice vote after only about 10 minutes of discussion. The Senate had approved the payment by a 99-0 vote back in February, so House action sends the measure to President Bush to sign the measure into law. Members said the easy House passage September 24, after months of delay, reflected two new realities: the determination by legislators to avoid partisan infighting in the wake of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington earlier in the month, and the desire to remove an irritant to the international community at a time when the president is seeking to forge a broad antiterrorist coalition. Representative Christopher Shays (Republican, Connecticut) termed the vote "one of the most important foreign policy decisions Congress will make this year." Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the third-ranking Republican in the House, had successfully blocked House action till now. He and conservative colleagues sought to make release of the funds contingent on approval of an unrelated amendment that would have exempted U.S. soldiers from the jurisdiction of an international war crimes court and withheld military aid from countries ratifying the treaty to set up the court. DeLay has now agreed to consider such legislation separately. Swift payment of the back debt to the U.N. was strongly supported in floor statements by both House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (Republican, Illinois) and Representative Tom Lantos of California, the senior Democrat on the committee. Hyde said enactment of the measure would ensure that "we can pay the second installment of our arrearages to the United Nations in return for continued progress in lowering our assessment ceilings for the U.N. regular budget and for U.N. peacekeeping operations." His reference was to an agreement worked out last December by then-U.N. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, under which the United States would pay some $926 million in three stages, while the United Nations would cut the future U.S. share of its operating fund from 25 to 22 percent, and gradually reduce the U.S. share of the separate peacekeeping fund from more than 31 percent to 25 percent by 2006. In addition, the United Nations agreed to a range of financial and management reforms sought by the United States. Hyde called action on the repayment measure "all the more important in light of the events of September 11. " Meeting our financial obligations to the United Nations will help to ensure that our policymakers can keep the focus on broad policies that unite the members of the Security Council in the fight against global terrorism," he said. Urging passage, Lantos told House members that "we cannot ask the United Nations to bring freedom to difficulties-possessed people, battle terrorism, resolve international conflicts and conduct extensive peacekeeping operations, and yet fail to pay our dues.... " The American people passionately support the common goal, punishment of those who conducted the September 11 attacks, and an end to global terrorism. The United Nations can help achieve that goal if we meet our commitments," he declared. Lantos observed that he does not consider the House bound by what he termed "a side agreement between the White House and the House Republican leadership" on the issue of the International Criminal Court. (The Washington File is a product of the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
Google search "united nations united states dues"
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/bush_family_and_the_s.htm < Neil Bush Scandal.. also part of the scandal were Jeb bush and George Snr.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #14 By: sandy2 - 12/24/2004 5:51:20 PM
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/bush_family_and_the_s.htm < Neil Bush Scandal.. also part of the scandal were Jeb bush and George Snr.


And what praytell does this have to do with the US paying UN dues?
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry.. that was not in response to your comment.. that was to show that even though the scandal is Anan's son, this does not reflect on on Anan because Bush's family was involved in scandals yet this does not seem to give reason for him to step down.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

The problem here is that the USA is making the UN out to be worse than it. The worst scandal here is the scandal of the United States fabricating evidence to go to war with Iraq. It doesn't matter if it was Bush, but then by the reasoning here he should be held responsible and should step down. And the UN seems right now to be better.. because I didn't see them invading Iraq.


The UN is no better than the US if it doesn't take corruption within it more seriously than the US does with its own corruption. Do most people accept that what happened at Abu Gharib was all right since what Hussein's regime did was far worse? I doubt it, and if they're fair about their beliefs, they wouldn't condone the corruption in the UN because of corruption in the US either, unless they were simply anti-US and pro-UN, in which case, their opinions would matter very little.


The UN has to take a higher road than the US if it wants to be taken more seriously than the US. If it doesn't, then why should anybody care about it?