News Flash, from the same UN where Kofi Annan’s team can barely contain its glee over the departure of John Bolton. This concerns that perennial love-interest of the UN bureaucracy — money — and one of Bolton’s foes in the Secretariat, Annan’s deputy, a.k.a. George Soros’s tenant, Mark Malloch Brown. Thanks to persistent questioning by Matthew Russell Lee of the Inner City Press, we now learn that two years ago, while heading the UN Development Program, Malloch Brown launched a project in which a historian was hired by the UNDP to produce a book, recently published, that is basically a paean to the UNDP: “The United Nations Development Programme: A Better Way?”
Total cost, out of funds one might have supposed the UNDP was spending on helping the poor? $567,000, which included $252,000 paid to the author, Wellesley College professor Craig Murphy; $91,559 for research and editing, and $55,452 paid by the UNDP to buy copies of the book from the publisher. You can read the rest of Matthew’s eye-opening story here, and if you scroll down from that item, he’s got plenty more about the hijinks of the UNDP — which for reasons not entirely clear, though no doubt Craig Murphy could illuminate them for us, is widely regarded as one of the UN’s better operations. If you have an appetite after that for even more UN-alia, here’s a link to an excellent story by my sometime co-author at Fox News, George Russell, on yet more odd doings, in another part of the UN system, UNDESA, including a short-term consultancy that brought in a $118,000 fee for the consultant (this on top of the scandal of missing millions, in which UNDESA is already embroiled).
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
16 Comments
1. jo:The UN has its problems with corruption as noted on this website.
The United States led Civilian Provincial Authority in Iraq also lost billions of US$ to corruption
(I refer you to the article by CSmonitor:
” Corruption in Iraq under US-led CPA may dwarf UN oil-for-food scandal.” http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0407/dailyUpdate.html
Surely, having presided over all the corruption in the CPA, the US government must have some lessons learned for the UN?
Seriously.
Dec 5, 2006 - 3:29 am 2. gringoman:I have no problem in believing that corruption in Iraq may rival corruption in the UN. (I didn’t spend years in Vietnam for nothing.) One caveat: If this is an argument for getting out of Iraq, why is it not also an argument for getting out of the UN?
Dec 5, 2006 - 4:52 pm 3. jo:Gringoman,
The CPA was eventually repalced by an iraqi government. What would be the alternative if we disbanded the UN tomorrow? How would global health, education, law of the seas, peace keepingmissions, treaties, and other issues etc be managed?
The other issue is that outside of the USA, the UN is actually a well respected and often well liked organisation. I think it is more likely that ther US pull out of the UN and then the rest of the world would choose to keep it and work with it.
But lets also be honest, the UN is often the only entity that can challenge a super power, its perfectly natural therefore that the world’s current super power (US) is less than enthusiastic about the UN. Eg. the UN’s refusal to endorse the iraq war means that the 4 billion US per week cost over there is coming out of US tax payers pockets and not being covered by the rest of the world (during the first- UN supported Iraq war- 90% of the US military costs were covered by other countries).
If I was a US citizen id be annoyed about that!
Dec 5, 2006 - 9:55 pm 4. John Fembup:“outside of the USA, the UN is actually a well respected and often well liked organisation”
This is a good point, Americans often miss it and don’t like to acknowledge it. A good many of my associates set their ambition to work at UN because UN delivered medicines, clean water and nourishing food to their villages when they were children. That is very far from a bad thing.
“lets also be honest, the UN is often the only entity that can challenge a super power”
Challenge to a debate, maybe, or a chukker of polo. Oh I almost forgot, it’s inconceivable the US could challenge UN in anti-Semitism, not even close. But what other kinds of challenges do you have in mind? The tsunami response? Charitable giving? Effective governance? Rule of law? C’mon, the UN can challenge the US in bureaucracy and precious little else.
“during the first- UN supported Iraq war- 90% of the US military costs were covered by other countries”
Yes, the majority of which support came from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. UN was not responsible for this support, but the fear of Saddam. Remember Saddam? That nice man who America treated so horribly?
Dec 6, 2006 - 1:09 pm 5. gringoman:The CPA was eventually repalced by an iraqi government. What would be the alternative if we disbanded the UN tomorrow? How would global health, education, law of the seas, peace keepingmissions, treaties, and other issues etc be managed?
1. How were they managed before the UN? And who mentioned “disbanding” it—unless you’re admitting that the UN is worthless without U.S. welfare payments.
2. Why is a profoundly corrupt organization (heroically documented by Claudia Rosett), that has also enabled pedophiles, rapine, thuggery and even genocide, the only way to define and deal with planetary needs?
3. Assuming (for the sake of argument) that the world can’t get along without this terminally unctuous body, why can’t it demonstrate its usefulness without the hated “superpower” which the cunning incompetents and satraps love to beat up on?
4. When catastrophes happen, like the Tsunami, everybody expects the U.S. to do the heavy lifting anyway. The U.S. obliges. Then a UN Kofi shows up for foto Ops and to deliver UN “blessing,” as the globalistas and media fawn. Thanks, but maybe no thanks.
5.Summary. Don’t disband it. Let’s have a great experiment. Let’s see how it works without the hated Superpower. Let it desert the New York fleshpots. Ensconce it in “friendlier” turf, like Brussels. Or what about Beijing—as a way to coax the Chinese into fuller participation and developing their “leadership” skills in world affairs, as befits an emerging great power and super trader? This would surely be relief for the world’s anti-Americans, no? But not to worry.The US could be a “well-meaning observer.” Of course, when the next calamity happens–as it always will—you know who the anti-Americanos will still come running to, right?
Dec 6, 2006 - 1:23 pm 6. jo:Firstly, i do think the UN needs to be reformed to make it more efficient.
But is it any more corrupt or inefficient than many branches of the US government- No!. Just look at FEMA/New Orleans or the US CPA in Iraq. If i were american id be alot more annoyed at the level of incompetence in my own government first!.
john
“the majority of which support came from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. UN was not responsible for this support, but the fear of Saddam”
Actually, they gave the money because the UN endorsed the war. For latest Iraq war the UN did not endorse and therefore Kuwait/Saudi didnt pay any money (even though Saddam still posed a threat(apparently).
Dec 6, 2006 - 9:31 pm 7. Jimmy D Hotard:We should get out of the UN, in my opinion they would not last long with out the money the U.S. put in the U.N ……
Dec 6, 2006 - 10:12 pm 8. GD France:I’m old, and I’m tired of this whole dog and pony show; tired of corrupt politicians, venal beauracrats practicing “realpolitik,” fanatics on every side, everybody concerned only with their own interests, and the U.S. everybody’s favorite whipping boy. Enough. I don’t recall being asked whether we should save the world from itself. From what I can see, humanity is hardly worth saving. Forget spreading democracy, that’s a pipe dream. Let’s reinstitute isolationism and let these idiots destroy themselves. We’ve done enough.
Dec 7, 2006 - 11:20 am 9. bourne2y:“Let’s reinstitute isolationism and let these idiots destroy themselves.”
These idiots don’t want to destroy themselves, they want to destroy the U.S. “Isolationism” means you will sit idly by and pretend you are safe while the sword that will behead you is manufactured and brought to your door. No, thanks.
Ironic that you post this stuff on 7 December.
Dec 7, 2006 - 4:10 pm 10. Jeff Z:Jo: Back when there was another superpower, the UN had no record whatsoever of standing up to it, any more than it does say, China, right now.
As far as equivalencies are concerned, please tell me which US military units are widely known to be serially raping children instead of fulfilling their duties, for example, and remaining unpunished and even undisciplined?
I’m waiting.
The UN “stands up” to nobody other than Israel and the US. What little good it does can be easily duplicated on a smaller and far cheaper scale, while its corruption, evilness, and greed should not be paid for by any moral person.
Still waiting.
Dec 7, 2006 - 5:08 pm 11. jo:Jeff Z
Just google ‘US military rape’ or ‘US military atrocities’ and you’ll get plenty of items to be going on with.
Dont get me wrong, its terrible what some fo the Brazilian and I think Nigerian soldiers assigned to the UN did.
“corruption, evilness and greed”
Is the US evil because of what a few US soldiers did at Abu Graib or Mai Lai in Vietnam? Or are you only applying this logic to the UN?
Just wondering…
Dec 8, 2006 - 1:24 am 12. Jeff Z:Jo: Our disconnect is that we’re approaching this from opposite directions. Of course US troops, like any other group of human beings, commit crimes. The fact that you have to use two isolated examples, one from 38.5 years ago, the other, while humiliating and distasteful, involving no deaths, serious injuries, or torture, both of which were not official policy and both of which were punished, is revealing. (As far as googling is concerned, well try, “jewish world control,” “black african subhuman,” etc for an idea of the reliability of that source.) Also, to point to recent events, there were convictions for rape and/or murder by a marine in the Philipines and a soldier in Iraq this past week — that is the difference between the UN and the US.
Evil committed by one person or group is irrelevant to that by another. The difference is the UN persists in its actions and justifies while the US condemns and tries to prevent its — as do most countries, democratic ones anyway. Even those that are not feel compelled to at least pretend to, such as in the Iranian PM’s letter to Americans last week.
The ultimate perniciousness is that the UN does not even deign to the Iranian PM’s hypocrisy (the homage vice pays to virtue, as La Rochefoucald famously put it) and instead subverts the idea of virtue altogether.
Dec 8, 2006 - 9:32 am 13. Brian:Jo wrote:
“Is the US evil because of what a few US soldiers did at Abu Graib or Mai Lai in Vietnam? Or are you only applying this logic to the UN?”
When it comes to rape, torture and murder, and other crimes, the difference between those crimes being committed by US soldiers and them being committed by UN peacekeepers might be the extent to which the crimes are investigated, widely condemned publicly, and the perpetrators and their superiors prosecuted.
What do you think?
Dec 8, 2006 - 10:49 am 14. jo:Brian, et.al.
“investigated, widely condemned publicly, and the perpetrators and their superiors prosecuted.”
I think you misunderstand the process.
Unfortunately, the UN has no authority to punish soldiers leant to it by members states (actually thank america for leading the pack in pressing for this). All the UN can do is investigate claims- which has been done- then send home guilty soldiers to their respective countries and strongly urge the governments to prosecute their soldiers (which they are relectant to do).
You seem to want it both ways- on the one hand americans dont want to let the UN prosecute american solders or citizens on the other hand you complain when the UN does not prosecute soldiers or citizens from member states.
So which is it that you want? To give UN authority to punish soldiers from members states ot not?
Dec 9, 2006 - 3:54 am 15. Brian:Jo wrote:
With respect, I think you misunderstand the issue.
For whatever reason, the UN process for investigating and bringing to justice criminals working under its banner seemingly works not at all, while the process of the US for investigating wrongdoing and bringing criminals working under its banner works far, far better.
Brian
Dec 9, 2006 - 12:58 pm 16. jo:Brian
“For whatever reason, the UN process for investigating and bringing to justice criminals working under its banner seemingly works not at all”
Perhaps you did not read my email on Dec 9 which explains the reason (i.e. the US government and others will not let the UN punish soldiers from member states).
Dec 10, 2006 - 8:53 pm