Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Sunday, April 30, 2006

More Wacky Fun From Turtle Bay

The "poor countries" opposing Sec Gen Annan taking more control of money and operations within the UN is not an all together bad thing. Their reasons are not really all that good, but the results of their actions may well prove to be so.

This story is getting very little attention, kudos to BBC for giving it the few paragraphs they did. Allowing the non-paying members to dictate how much and where funding goes is a bad idea. Allowing Kofi unrestrained control of container ships full of money and materials is an even worse idea. Reform in the operation of the UN is pretty much not going to happen, all the grandstanding and posturing aside. By cutting off the flow of cash, or threatening to do so, reform of a limited nature may result.

It won't be permanent, or nearly as much as needed, but it will ratchet down the insanity a bit. The sad part in all of this is that the problems most 3rd World countries are facing are rooted in, and exacerbated by, the actions of the UN. Combine that with completely insane leaders such as Mugabe and disaster does shortly ensue. Other than the obvious course of action - breaking up the UN and starting over - what could be done to derail the infinite gravy train with biscuit wheels? Or is it too late?

Comments

With any luck this will turn into a crisis for the UN and throw the financial situation into serious doubt.

Either that or we’ll continue to fund a bunch of thugs who sit on a world body and act like statesmen.

likwidshoe on April 30, 2006 at 01:16 pm
Avatar for Epicurus

The U.N. is no better than the sum of its parts.  If the nations that control it and make it up are corrupt, etc. then it will be corrupt. 

Epicurus on April 30, 2006 at 05:54 pm
Avatar for Bat One

Epicurus,

Ignoring the fact that any question about the corruption of the UN is at best gratuitous, your comment would presumably mean that so long as any member of such a body is corrupt, then the whole organization would also be. 

That, in turn, fairly begs the question:  Why bother?  For if there were no corrupt member nations, would there be any substantive purpose for the organization to begin with?

 

Bat One on April 30, 2006 at 06:10 pm
Avatar for Epicurus

Bat One,

The point, from the perspective of some, would be able to create an international body which could impose its will on corrupt nations. 

 

Epicurus on May 1, 2006 at 08:57 am
Avatar for Bat One

Epicurus,

Of course.  And the question is who determines what that international body’s "will" is to be?   We already know who is expected to do the enforcing.

Bat One on May 1, 2006 at 09:10 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.