perfidy

J,
I'm surprised that the fallout from this scandal is was the tipping point for you. "No War for Oil", the puppet-headed chant of the UN loving Left, takes on a new dimension with all of this, doesn't it?

The General Assembly is composed of representatives from governments that have more in common with Saddam, Khaddafy, and Jong il than with Washington, Jefferson, and Wilson. The idea that any serious policy stance that comes out of that building is anything but corrupt is irresponsibly naive.

Look, I think the UN does do alot of good things: WHO, say, and the archaeological orgs. But when it moves beyond charity I start appreciating it less. And why the lingua franca at the UN is French I'll never know.

As for Kerry, who claims only the UN can authorize or wage just wars abroad, he- surprise- is flip flopping. The UN gave near total support to the Gulf War. You remember, the one where nearly every Arab state and even the French- the French for goodness' sake- came on for the big win. (OK, the Foreign Legion arguably isn't French, but hey there was a tricolor flapping out on VII Corps' west flank).

Yet, with broad support of the UN and the Arab world Kerry still opposed the whole thing. I think because it was going to be a quagmire, like when he was in Vietnam. Had you heard that Kerry was in Vietnam, by the way?

There are some who are moving toward a international organization of reasonable countries - the US and others is pushing for a conclave of representative democracies as a couterweight and more morally sound alternative to the grabbag of odious dictatorships that is the UN.

GL, it's not so much that this scandal is a tipping point. If you could represent my confidence in the UN as a building, say a nice Victorian with a mansard roof and window-boxes, before this scandal it was already a half-collapsed wreck abandoned even as a crackhouse. Oil-For-Food just sort of bulldozed the remains and filled in the foundation.

You both,of course, mention the main problem-- that countries like Syria get to sit on the Human Rights committee, and Libya (pre-cooperation) sitting on the committee intended to stem nuclear proliferation. Any international coalition must-- must-- grade its members based on high standards of decency, clarity, and moral fiber.

B,
But you know what? I don't know that membership in ANOTHER international org is in our best interest.

In terms of executing foreign policy, anyway, there are how many instruments to work within or be thwarted by? The UN, the EU, and NATO overlap enough to confound us already, don't they?

I wonder if we are already at the beginning of a new balance-of-power system to govern international affairs. Except that this time around, instead of European powers having to decide which state they will ally with in order to thwart the strongest, the modern BOP system is based around opposition to the US, period, regardless of policy or intention.

J,
I getcha. But I think even a grading program that you suggest to be too little.

The most powerful state should have the greatest influence over every other member state. The idea that in the General Assembly all voices carry the same weight just leaves a bad taste in my mouth; that Haiti carries the same weight as India, say, is just stupid.

Nothing in nature, in this imperfect world, is fair. Why should we pretend that international affairs would be? Why should we just assume that "international law" is a good thing?

Johno,

In the year since the story about corruption in the oil-for-food program has broken, no new real information has been put forward. I wonder why it still survives. What I have always said is that the global energy industries--especially oil--are corrupt in general, be it in Iraq, Central Asia or West Africa.

The only thing that is different here is that the ideals of the United Nations could not stand up tot that corruption. And if the UN can only be as strong as its membership, why should it defeat corruption when four of five countries who are permanent security council members--the heart of the organization--are complicit in that corruption. UN efforts can be no stronger than the commitments of US, Russia, UK, France and China thereto.

NDR, the scandal survives because it's one hell of a scandal, methinks. I do agree with you about the corruption of international energy businesses-- how could it be any other way, but what does shock me is that the UN was shaken so much by its presence.

What WOULD a worthwhile (useful/benign/net-good) international organization look like? Keep in mind that at some point the US isn't going to have quite as big a dick to swing, so it might be good to build some safeguards into the system against piling on the big dog, and against the big dogs yanking the little ones around at will.

On one hand it pisses me off that this has happened, if indeed it has. If these individuals have actually done these deals, and these receipts are the proof that it happened, it's pretty bad. I'm not sure about the legality of it.

What I am sure about is this: When you add up the "oil coupons" in the ABC news article, you rapidly arrive at a figure of 750 MILLION barrels of oil. A barrel of oil has a value today of about $35 or so. That means the "giveaway" here was somewhere on the order of $25 BILLION dollars.

Two reality checks, though: First, Iraq's entire GDP is about $20 BILLION at the moment. Second, pre-war Iraqi oil output was around 2.8 MILLION barrels a day, and post-war it's around 2.3 MILLION.

The "bribes" add up to the entire economic output of the country for at least a YEAR. The "bribees" probably didn't know just how many of these gift coupons were being floated by the dictatorship.

Worthless paper, under any circumstances.

So accepting a bribe that turns out to be worthless is *better* than accepting some other kind of bribe? To me, it just means that the bribees are overly credulous.

Hey, I didn't characterize it as "better", did I? You mistakenly accuse, sir!

I just thought it was interesting that it didn't add up.

Hang the pricks, if that's appropriate.

Fair enough. Who'd ever have thunk that a tinpot psycho dictator would give away bribes with money he didn't have??

Certainly not Charles Pasqua of France, the Russian Orthodox Church, or MP George Galloway. Let that be a lesson, gentlemen!!

Johno,

The US does not have the choice simply between giving up on the UN and becoming submerged therein. Obviously the US exercises tremendous influence within the UN through money, industry, logistic support, and the seat on the security council. Episodes where the US has been embarrassed have been few and largely only written condemnations. The UN has never impeded a US invasion.

However, the US can also act as a partner of the UN while simultaneously working within it. it can give support to UN humanitarian efforts, reinforce development initiatives, police its own industries, etc. Some initiatives recognize such a reality, like the sogenannt Road Map: the outside powers are described as EU, UN, and US.

NDR, fair enough. But what of the times where (such as now) when much of the rest of the big players seem to have decided to screw with us? I don't take it as axiomatic that if everybody says it's wrong that automatically makes it so, but such intransigence (or backbone, if you see it differently) makes it hard for the US to work within the UN, much less partner with it.

NDR, some would argue that that is infact what the US has been doing - to vocal condemnation from the left. We support the humanitarian stuff, try to use the UN fora for world ordering, and stiff arm them when they impede our actions. We have tried to influence the UN not just through Security Council votes, but also through withholding funds - again to the vocal protests of the left.

Some of the UN agencies are holdovers from the League of Nations that survived its demise - or are even older. I think that saving the good ones is possible and good, but aside from those charitible functions, that the UN as constituted is fundamentally unsuited to providing any real benefit.

The General Assembly is a convocation of dictators, and a soapbox for the depraved. The Security Council is not only drastically out of line with the realities of power in the world, but is an ineffective means of providing security. The competing interests of the powers veto powers on the council will insure that the UN can act "unanimously" on only the most inconsequential matters.

I think that in general, the interests of the United States, and of most nations, would be better served by limited scope international organizations and treaties. Regional security alliances like NATO, single issue agreements like the Postal and Telegraph Unions, etc. Let those who wish to be involved, join. The WTO, GATT, regional alliances, and all the other smaller ones create the real international order much more than the posturings at the UN. The UN is worse than the old Polish Parliament.

Personally, I don't mind people obstructing the US, but I'd prefer that they not do it on our dime.

B,
All you ever needed to know about the UN: the standing ovation that Tariq Aziz received in the General Assembly shortly before the war began.

"We love Saddam! America sucks!"

In that case "gentlemen", please hand in your diplomatic plates, plush apartments, and address books with your favorite whores and get the fuck out.

Those countries who "naturally"- through culture, language, achievement, or general attitude- work together well will continue to develop and evolve. Everyone else can exert some effort to unfucking themselves instead of waiting for American dollars to pay for it. Or in the case of societies that hunger for exterminating Jews, euros.

Aren't there roughly 157 better uses for that space on the East Side than giving haughty foreigners a place to work?

Buckethead's a future armaments junkie. I used to be a big international politics junkie. In my opinion y'all's taking the UN way too seriously.

The UN General Assembly (and to a lesser extent the Security Council) exists so third world dictators can feel powerful on the world stage instead of only within the borders of their particular backwater. That and as aggrandizement for the former world powers of Western Europe (France, for one) and as patronage to the Commie Hordes with Big Ass Bombs (Russia and China).

The lackeys in thousand dollar suits exist solely to strut about as exemplars of the worthiness of their home countries. Any international nastiness whatsoever that can be even possibly remotely avoided by letting these do-nothing sycophantic lapdogs yap is a Good Thing in my book.