I have heard the journalist Claudia Rosett referred to us an enemy of the United Nations. I have also read the same of me (to, justifiably, a considerably more minor extent). Neither of us, however, is an enemy of the UN. Indeed, in a certain way people like us could be looked upon as the instution’s greatest hopes because at least we still care. We hold alive the dream of the United Nations at it was once was conceived, not the pitiful corruption center that now exists.
Now that “venerable” institution is headed for its first “UN Ethics Day” (!) in May. (I think they were setting up the comedy writers.) Claudia has written a superb thumbsucker for the occasion in Commentary. Here’s a bit:
Is any of this likely to help? Behind the specific scandals lies what one of the UN’s own internal auditors has termed a “culture of impunity.” A grand committee that reports to itself alone, the UN operates with great secrecy and is shielded by diplomatic immunity. One of its prime defenses, indeed, is the sheer impenetrability of its operations: after more than 60 years as a global collective, it has become a welter of so many overlapping programs, far-flung projects, quietly vested interests, nepotistic shenanigans, and interlocking directorates as to defy accurate or easy comprehension, let alone responsible supervision.
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.
6 Comments
1. Fausta:The UN is to ethics what Hugh Hefner is to morality.
Apr 3, 2006 - 7:49 am 2. David Thomson:ìNeither of us, however, are enemies of the UN.î
I am, however, an enemy of the United Nations. One doesn’t need to be another organizational specialist like the late Peter Drucker to realize that the present incarnation of a grand vision is beyond saving. At best, we can only hope to marginalize Kofi Annanís band of fools. The UN was doomed from the very beginning when the evil Soviet Union was given such a dominant role. It was inevitably downhill after that.
Apr 3, 2006 - 8:00 am 3. Larry J:It’s kind of funny in a way. I’m sure those same people who decry criticisms of the UN would scoff at Steven Decatur’s statement,
ìOur country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but our country right or wrong.î
GK Chesterson’s reply to Decatur also applies to those who seek to improve the UN by exposing the problems:
“‘My country, right or wrong’ is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying ‘My mother, drunk or sober.’”
The first step necessary to fix any problem is to acknowledge it exists.
Apr 3, 2006 - 8:11 am 4. tim maguire:Is anyone aware of an attempt to quantify what exactly it is that the UN does? I know generally–inoculations and clean water in parts of the third world, peacekeeping missions (some effective, some not), disaster aid (mostly ineffective), etc.
My natural reaction to the various scandals is “do away with the damn thing” but I know some of what they do is valuable and if we could get a clear picture of what they do, we could more easily decide what they’re worth.
Apr 3, 2006 - 3:45 pm 5. Anthony (Los Angeles):Neither of us, however, is an enemy of the UN. Indeed, in a certain way people like us could be looked upon as the instution’s greatest hopes because at least we still care. We hold alive the dream of the United Nations at it was once was conceived, not the pitiful corruption center that now exists.
I thought I cared, too, and that perhaps the organization could be reformed. Now, however,I doubt it. I think the UN as it was intended to be is dead, and what stands now at Turtle Bay is some rotted edifice waiting to collapse. Who’s to say we shouldn’t give it one final shove?
Honestly, I think Bush’s ad hoc coalitions (as in Iraq and the tsunami relief effort) is a much more efficient way to go about things. That, and perhaps forming a League of Liberal Democracies.
Apr 3, 2006 - 3:54 pm 6. AlanC:“I think the UN as it was intended to be is dead”
The problem has always been that the UN could NEVER work. It, like communism, is predicated on an ideal that is pure fiction, the ability of humans to blithely submit their own interests to the unrestrained will of an elite.
In the USSR it was the “New Communist Man”. A perfectly altruistic sort that would gladly work his ass off while everyone else sat on theirs.
The UN was predicated on the same behavior afflicting countries. That countries would all willingly ignore their own interests and ideals for the “greater good” as defined by a self appointed elite.
Wasn’t going to happen 60 years ago and ain’t going to happen now. Anyone who believed it then was just as much of an idealistic fool as anyone who believes it now. (well after 60 years of evidence I guess today’s believers are bigger fools)
Apr 4, 2006 - 10:04 am