United Nations = Big Brother????
- Thread starter Zanardi 50
- Start date
Flames?
Made sense to me.
Particularly in light of recent events.
-J
Made sense to me.
Particularly in light of recent events.
-J
Not too many credible defenders of the UN these days.
For good reason, this piece in the (requires registration) NY Times.
The oil-for-food program is no ordinary relief effort. Not only does it involve astronomical amounts of money, it also operates with alarming secrecy. Intended to ease the human cost of economic sanctions by letting Iraq sell oil and use the profits for staples like milk and medicine, the program has morphed into big business. Since its inception, the program has overseen more than $100 billion in contracts for oil exports and relief imports combined.
It also collects a 2.2 percent commission on every barrel — more than $1 billion to date — that is supposed to cover its administrative costs. According to staff members, the program's bank accounts over the past year have held balances upward of $12 billion. With all that money pouring straight from Iraq's oil taps — thus obviating the need to wring donations from member countries — the oil-for-food program has evolved into a bonanza of jobs and commercial clout. Before the war it employed some 1,000 international workers and 3,000 Iraqis. (The Iraqi employees — charged with monitoring Saddam Hussein's imports and distribution of relief goods — of course all had to be approved by the Baath Party.)
For good reason, this piece in the (requires registration) NY Times.
The oil-for-food program is no ordinary relief effort. Not only does it involve astronomical amounts of money, it also operates with alarming secrecy. Intended to ease the human cost of economic sanctions by letting Iraq sell oil and use the profits for staples like milk and medicine, the program has morphed into big business. Since its inception, the program has overseen more than $100 billion in contracts for oil exports and relief imports combined.
It also collects a 2.2 percent commission on every barrel — more than $1 billion to date — that is supposed to cover its administrative costs. According to staff members, the program's bank accounts over the past year have held balances upward of $12 billion. With all that money pouring straight from Iraq's oil taps — thus obviating the need to wring donations from member countries — the oil-for-food program has evolved into a bonanza of jobs and commercial clout. Before the war it employed some 1,000 international workers and 3,000 Iraqis. (The Iraqi employees — charged with monitoring Saddam Hussein's imports and distribution of relief goods — of course all had to be approved by the Baath Party.)
Ironic that Saddam was essentially financing the running of the UN; the very organization that emposed sanctions against him. Also ironic that the UN which stands for "Peace" was effectively financed by a brutal dictator.
No wonder the UN wasn't keen on rushing into a war... that's a lot of money to lose.
No wonder the UN wasn't keen on rushing into a war... that's a lot of money to lose.
The UN is essentially defined by its membership. Since the UN has attempted to be inclusionary and allow member nations who have corrupt governments, you wind up with human rights violators chairing human rights committees.
I think it is interesting to have governments like France opposing the Iraq war when governments like France have been selling Iraq weapons. And they argue that our involvement is an act of 'self-interest' and question US motives.
What I find REALLY interesting is how little press things like this get. As a consumer, you really have to watch the news religiously and carefully to catch all these innocuous little bits of information. Yet these are the very things that bring the big picture into focus.
IMO, the UN is the future. I can understand why/how corrupt countries could and should become members. That can be the best tool for influencing change. But only if the majority of UN members leverage against these countries for positive change. Unless the member countries have equal standards, the member countries should not have equal vote. If the UN isnt going to enforce certain standards among corrupt members, they shouldnt allow membership to these countries. I say, go ahead and invite everyone to the party, just cut off the alcohol if they dont behave.
I think it is interesting to have governments like France opposing the Iraq war when governments like France have been selling Iraq weapons. And they argue that our involvement is an act of 'self-interest' and question US motives.
What I find REALLY interesting is how little press things like this get. As a consumer, you really have to watch the news religiously and carefully to catch all these innocuous little bits of information. Yet these are the very things that bring the big picture into focus.
IMO, the UN is the future. I can understand why/how corrupt countries could and should become members. That can be the best tool for influencing change. But only if the majority of UN members leverage against these countries for positive change. Unless the member countries have equal standards, the member countries should not have equal vote. If the UN isnt going to enforce certain standards among corrupt members, they shouldnt allow membership to these countries. I say, go ahead and invite everyone to the party, just cut off the alcohol if they dont behave.
Similar threads
