The UN-US Love-Hate relationship

The UN has a really weird relationship with the US, one , if put in human terms, would resemble that of relationship with an emotionally abusive but money-needy partner: The UN doesn't like the US doing things on their own or not listening to them more, and berates them publically for it every chance they get, yet they always come back to them begging for money and asking them to overlook old trespasses, cause "why are you bringing up old stuff?" and "But we can change, really, we can!". Perfect example: The United States should stop using a "big stick" policy with the United Nations, which needs more funding to do an effective job, a senior U.N. official told lawmakers on Thursday. Mark Malloch Brown, chief of staff to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, defended the world body to the House of Representatives International Relations Committee and said while there were still problems, reforms had begun. "We know that while we have made enormous strides ... we have some real issues of audit oversight, management accountability, financial disclosure and general performance that we urgently need to get right," he said. The United Nations has been dogged by scandals, from sexual abuse by peacekeepers to corruption in the now-defunct U.N. oil-for-food program in Iraq. But forget all that, the real problem is the approach the US is taking, at least according to Mark Brown. Asked by one lawmaker why he thought the United States was unpopular among many U.N. members, the top U.N. official said a less heavy-handed attitude would help. "Often the U.S. manages to project itself in the forum with a big stick rather than with a hand reached out. More of the latter would help," Malloch Brown said. So, the US, besides handing out money to UN member countries that need their money but hate them personally, has to also be nice to them? Isn't that like bribing people to like you? Hmm... Oh, and as for the Big Stick approach thing, here is what Mr. Brown means: Congress, which has been at loggerheads with the U.N. over reform efforts and the oil-for-food scandal, is drafting legislation to make changes in the world body and one proposal would tie U.S. funding to the success of reforms. "We are opposed to legendary bureaucratization, to political grandstanding, to billions of dollars spent on multitudes of programs with meager results, to the outright misappropriation of funds represented by the emerging scandal regarding the oil-for-food program," said Illinois Republican Rep. Henry Hyde, chair of the panel. So, the US is against spending money on failed programs-by their ownadmission- and want the funding to be tied to successful reforms. Oh, very unreasonable. Very unreasonable indeed. The US should instead give them a blank check and say "Don't worry, i won't ask you for any results or anything like that, that would be rude and heavy handed of me. And Forget about a receipt. After all, i should trust you guys blindly. I am sure you are looking out for me and my best interest." Riiiigggghht!