.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Rantings of a Sandmonkey

Be forewarned: The writer of this blog is an extremely cynical, snarky, pro-US, secular, libertarian, disgruntled sandmonkey. If this is your cup of tea, please enjoy your stay here. If not, please sod off

Saturday, May 28, 2005

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!

4 Comments:

At 5/28/2005 08:40:00 AM, Blogger Tina said...

Personally, I am sick of the UN. I work hard for my money, and I don't mind the government spending tax money to help those who need help. However, when I hear about the UN holding conferences in South Africa when they had crates of the finest wine flown in, ate imported lobster and prime rib while right outside the doors of the hotel there were people living in cardboard boxes and were starving, it's a bit too much.

Reading about UN "Peacekeepers" raping 7 year old girs, trading food for sex, and the UN ignoring the reports, makes my blood boil.

In Iraq, there were warehouses full of rotting food, the very food that the UN was supposed to be overseeing, that was never given to the Iraqi people. Hospitals had no medicine or supplies while the UN presided over warehouses so full that the medicine was outdated and became useless.

Look at their response to the Tsunami, the US, Australia and a few of our other friends were there for two weeks before the UN bothered to show up, and then it was to "hold a conference".

And shall I even mention Rawanda or Durfur?

 
At 5/28/2005 09:01:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

'We are opposed to legendary bureaucratization, to political grandstanding, to billions of dollars spent on multitudes of programs with meager results'

Sounds just like Congress to me! We should all stop re-electing incumbents. That would cut the bullshit in half right away.

 
At 5/29/2005 02:19:00 AM, Blogger Beth said...

I'm sick of the UN too. I'm finding it almost impossible to find a reason why we're still involved with that crowd. The ONLY reason I can see is to keep the UN from making Israel nonexistent. Other than that, there seems to be nothing worth keeping us in it.

 
At 8/04/2006 05:41:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous 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?"

yes, indeed it is. and aside from being the right thing to do (assisting those less fortunate than ourselves not because they have earned it or not, or whether they 'deserve' it or not, but because it's in our own self-interest to make the world a 'nice place to live'), it down right beats the alternative 'strategy' we have in place now (2006) -- "bring it on"... make enemies of as many peoples as possible so that we can wage our own little 'holy' war-vernichtungskrieg against them.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home