I started a thread on this a year or so ago, but at the time there wasn’t a lot of information…mostly a lot of smoke and speculation. Things seem to be heating up now:
For debate: Does this show a serious flaw in the UN? Are ‘urgent reform’(s) needed? If so, what reforms are needed? If not…why not? What, if any, conclusions do you draw about such wide spread corruption of the system? Does this say anything about the ‘status quo’ option of simply keeping sanctions in place (as opposed to the invasion of Iraq)? What should (can) be done to the various companies/government officials involved in these shady dealing?
At last, someone has the courage, the boldness, the audacity to bring to GD the single most urgent issue facing the nation (other than the Cognitive Dissonance Pandemic, of course…) Corruption in the Oil for Food program has captivated the nation’s attention in ways that no other…oh! look! Shiny!..
Get real. There is a thread about nudity, one about Meat Machines and a sports thread currently in GD. I’d say this is slightly more important than that 'luci. YMMV and all that, but that was just lame.
Well, Hannity thinks its important. Rush thinks is really important. Bob Novak, you bring up the subject, he goes into one of his lycanthropy episodes. A lot of people, of a distinct political persuasion, think the UN’s failures, corruptions, etc. is a major level Big Hairy Ass Deal.
So in about 200 countrys, there are greedy business-type people, lots of them in Russia, lots more in France, and scattered about the globe more or less generally. Internationally, the UN has about as much enforcement power as the Crossing Guard Lady. And failed to take decisive action. Oh, and Koffi Annan’s kid is a disappointment to him. Shit, imagine how Herbert Walker Bush feels!
I love it, there’s tons of threads bashing Bush, the administration, Republicans, and conservatives pretty much every day, but this all okay because that’s news. However the world’s major diplomatic organization has serious charges of gross corruption levied against it, and not only is it not news, but to mention it is both laughable and some form of Republican ploy.
Anyways, to get back on topic, yes I think this does show a serious flaw in the U.N.
For a huge chunk of the member nations the UN is just a cash-buffet to stroll around in and try to grab as much money as possible, that’s the biggest flaw in the U.N. It breeds a general culture of corruption because the primary focus of the actors involved is becoming not diplomatic, but economic in nature. And I’m using the terms “economic” lightly because a lot of the time we’re just talking about people trying to set up ways to skim money off for themselves and other cronies instead of having it appropriate to the citizens of their respective countries.
I think this particular case shows that member nations need to be held more responsible for their own corporations violating U.N. sanctions (and this falls on the U.S. just as much as France or Russia, our companies may not have been involved to the same degree, but we have some people with dirty hands as well) and I also think we need to have a better system for choosing the U.N.'s chief officers. Because we’ve had a lot of corruption floating around Kofi Annan for a long time now, and Boutros was always under a cloud of suspicion for various things (for example many think the U.N. was in Somalia almost exclusively because of his personal ties with one of the tribes involved in that conflict.)
While not quite as dismissive as elucidator, I do tend to see this as an attempted distraction from current events. That said…
The simple solution in case of a future similar situation is not to allow the sanctionee to choose his business partners.
Corruption should be punished, and I would hope that the appropriate countries file charges against their resident people and corporations as appropriate. To my knowledge, the U.N. does not have that power.
The U.N. is, in many ways, a paper tiger, relying upon suasion and peer pressure to accomplish its goals. Reform of the U.N., as stated by a certain political persuasion of the U.S., is a code phrase for making this tiger out of Kleenex instead of posterboard. I would be against that.
This report certainly brings into question the objectivity in France and Russia’s opposition to the Iraq war. These two countries were responsible for “most” of the contracts that bilked the UN out of 1.8 billion dollars. Thats an awful lot of money and assuredly some of it eventually found its way into the hands of French and Russian politicians. Thats not to say that they knew were the money was coming from but none the less they recieved it. A trade that was bringing in 100 of million dollars per year in pure profit will have a number of powerful supporters.
Obviously that is all just speculation but something tells me it had a hand in their decisions.
So you think these investigations into the Oil for Food program as of late, which started more than 12 months ago, were done in advance to distract from the Plame/DeLay/Miers issues?
Or do you think it’s inappropriate for conservative commentators to talk about anything other than three news stories?
The UN timed their report to help the president that has been the most hostile to the organization since its inception? A president that has among other things called the UN irrelevant and thumbed his nose at the UN? I mean jeez, does everything in the world happen to shift attention away from Bush?
The U.S. government doesn’t control when this report is released. Do you think Bush has the power in the U.N. to get U.N. officials to collude with him in an attempt to sway domestic media scrutiny off himself?
Afaict the report was released by the UN…and the investigation has been ongoing for quite awhile. Assuming for a moment thats true, it would be quite a trick if Bush et al could manage to get it to be released to take the pressure off.
I guess I don’t get the hostility towards this subject. I didn’t get this from some right wing source, and to be honest I was unaware that there was a huge right wing push for this as a news story (though I’m not surprised). I saw it on Yahoo and since I started a thread about it last year it seems natural to start another one (since I didn’t see on in GD).
I’d say the jury is still out on the real world impact this had on those two countries in reguards to their position on Iraq at a national level. It certainly bears looking at though I’d say…at a minimum it shouldn’t just be dismissed as seems to be happening by some in this thread.
Actually I think this is incorrect as I understand things. The UN wasn’t bilked out of any money at all. This was the amount Saddam was able to skim from the program (no idea how much those in collusion with him made…I didn’t see a dollar figure for that). If anything, it was the Iraqi people who were ‘bilked’…and they got ‘bilked’ big time. And the 1.8 billion figure doesn’t even show all that happened, as I understand that a lot of what they DID end up getting was shoddy, poor quality crap…when they got anything at all.
Agreed…this is a major flaw in the current UN.
I’ll await more responses before actually answering my own questions.
I can agree with this. How do we reform that other than kicking those countries out? Reform has to begin in the home country. How can the U.N. encourage (and enforce) that?
Wasn’t trying to pile on or anything, if this was a report from the U.S. State Department or something I’d probably say it was an obvious attempt to manipulate the media. But since it’s a UN report I was just highly skeptical about that possibility.
It was on the front page of the SJ Merc today, and was a top story on all the news shows I watched, included PBS’s News Hour. Guess you forgot those since you’re so busy listenning to Hannity, Rush, and Novak.
How to actually implement the reforms is a hugely difficult issue. This basically hits at the biggest problem with the U.N. It’s only as powerful as the member states allow it to be, and most states will just ignore the U.N. when that is to their advantage because the U.N. has very little power on things like this. Now, I do think the U.N. is pretty darn good at dealing with overt breaches of the international order (ala the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait) because certain extremely hostile actions will insure strong action of a military nature being undertaken by the more powerful member states (the U.S. + Europe.) But for issues like petty corruption, I guess the best case way we can try and stop it from the U.N’s perspective is sanctions, but I think we all know sanctions can be pretty ineffective.
The U.N. has a big hammer in one hand it can use to severely punish the worst actions, and for everything else the U.N. is basically powerless, because it can’t (nor do I think would we want it) use the military response over everything.
For a lot of the reforms that the U.N. needs the U.N.'s power over member states would have to be increased. But then we start infringing on state sovereignty and that not a route I personally want to see us go down. Maybe there is another way the U.N. can fix corrupt member states but I just don’t see it.
Maybe we could have some members ranked based on how well they handle corruption, and the members that are ranked the lowest will be excluded from the more lucrative committees and such.
