What are the ringing sucesses of the United Nations. - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mephisto2 · 11-14-2004, 08:22 PM

OK, in an attempt to get this thread BACK ON TRACK, I'll respond to irate's comments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

it seems you're trying to ride both sides of the fence... on one hand you attempt to refute any criticisms of the UN, yet also maintain that it is much in need of reforming. in what ways would you reform it?

I'm not refuting "any criticisms" of the UN at all. In fact, I've repeatedly said otherwise.

How would I reform it?

Well, I would either abolish or reform the concept of "Permanent" members of the Security Council. It may have reflected Real Politik in the post-WWII era, but I'm not so sure it's appropriate today. Of course, it's a difficult subject and I don't claim to have all the answers.

Quote:

if those reforms you propose are much needed and fundamental... i'm not sure we disagree at all except that you seem married to the idea that the UN is the institution of choice for international coordination while i'm not convinced their record merits that confidence.

With what would you replace it? Call "it" whatever you like, but the concept is the same. I'm arguing against those who seem to resist the whole concept of an inter-national body, that there is "no need" for the UN etc.

Quote:

things i would do to reform the UN:
1) establish criteria where the united nations MUST act in a humanitarian situation. if there is blatant genocide (rwanda) or an extreme humanitarian crisis (somalia) then the UN must intervene. i make no judgement as to how stringent those guidelines should be but, as it stands, the UN demagogues humanitarian issues while avoiding the circumstances that are not politically expedient.

Well this statement is in glaring inconsistency with the majority of anti-UN arguments heard heretofore. On one hand we have anti-UN posters stating that the US should never cede an iota of sovereignty to the UN, yet on another we have you saying that the the United Nations "MUST act" in particular circumstances. Since the UN has no assets (military or economic) other than that provided by its members, you are suggesting that the United States "MUST act" when and if the United Nations so commands.

I'm hope you see the hypocracy here.

The UN should never be forced to act at all. By its very nature it is a democratic body. If the General Assembly or the Security Council vote against something, then that's a fact of life. It's called politics. And it happens everyday in the US and Britian and Sweden and.... in every democratic nation on Earth. The UN only acts when its constituent bodies/members so decide.

If you have a problem with the lack of UN action in a particular circumstance, you should take it up with the coutnries that veto'd it or blocked the passage of the proposal.

Quote:

2) abolish all notion of international courts.

I couldn't disagree more. On one hand you're saying that the UN "MUST act" but on another you're removing any body with which it can prosecute those who have committed crimes. If the US deigns itself to be above International Law then there is very little the UN and the rest of the world can do about it. But the US should not be able to dictate to the rest of the world community, who support the concept of an International Court, what they should be allowed to do.

Again, I hope you see the glaring inconsistency here too.

Quote:

3) provide complete fiscal and bookkeeping transparency in ALL matters. the United Nations operates under pledged money and kept afloat by taxpayers around the world. it needs to be completely accountable for every dime it spends. we should know how much the secretary general takes home in pay, we should know their budget for pencil lead.

Well, I agree there should be fiscal transparency. I'm not sure if the salary of the Secretary General is confidential or not. I doubt it. http://www.un.org/Depts/OHRM/salarie...ces/salary.htm

Proposed Programme Budget for the Biennium 2004-2005 - http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups...npan015528.pdf

Background to the Budget for Financial year 2004/05 - http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups...NPAN017032.pdf

Quote:

4) recognize that if the United States is going to be the one to front the money and military backing to UN actions... the US should be given special consideration in diplomatic negotiations. if they want the US to come to the table on equal footing (and i think that it should) then be prepared to pony up the funds and manpower. you will not use our troops who swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States to bear an unequal burden in peacekeeping or military action.

First and foremost, the United States actually provides considerably less than many countries. The contribution to the UN is based upon a percentage of GDP and the US is far behind in paying its dues. In other words, the countries that do pay their dues are experiencing a greater economic burden than the US which is not paying its dues.

Secondly, contributing troops to UN actions is entirely voluntary. There is not "quid pro quo" in this aspect. You can't say "Well, we will give troops but we want to have more influence". It may transpire that way in essence (as the US does indeed have far more influence than, say, Ireland) but you can't enshrine that in the charter.

Thirdly, and almost paradoxically, the US does in fact have more actual real influence and control over the United Nations than 98% of other countries with its permanent seat on the Security Council. In effect, the US can block, and regularly does, any action the UN SC undertakes or recommends.

So your argument is not only invalid in theory, but also baseless in fact.

Mr Mephisto

Publius · 11-14-2004, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

tarl: what the founding fathers did not imagine as necessary in the late 1700s--in the context of a largely agrarian economy--makes no difference whatsoever in the 21st century. even during the period when tocqueville was researching "democracy in america"--the late 1830s--the agrarian model for the american economy was not really dominant--capitalism was taking shape in the cities--the civil war pretty much determined which general mode of economic activity would dominate in the states. so the world jefferson wrote about is long gone, tarl. it does not matter what they found horrifying--their was a different place.

Well yes and no. It might be argued that America was a different place at that point in time, but Europe was well advanced into entering the industrial/capitalism age. In a letter Jefferson writes to Madison in 1785, Jefferson addresses the issue of inequality in European society, and while his primary concern is the unequal division of property (land) (keeping in mind Jefferson strongly believed that the best society was one based upon agrarian principles) it can be argued that in a world where capitalism rules the definition of property would not be limited only to land but would also include Marx’s “means of production” and the mass fortunes of people like Bill Gates. Well, I’ll let Jefferson do the talking:

Jefferson: to James Madison. Fontainebleau, Oct. 28, 1785

“As soon as I had got clear of the town I fell in with a poor woman walking at the same rate with myself and going the same course. Wishing to know the condition of the laboring poor I entered into conversation with her, which I began by enquiries for the path which would lead me into the mountain: and thence proceeded to enquiries into her vocation, condition and circumstances. She told me she was a day laborer at 8 sous or 4d. sterling the day: that she had two children to maintain, and to pay a rent of 30 livres for her house (which would consume the hire of 75 days), that often she could get no employment and of course was without bread. As we had walked together near a mile and she had so far served me as a guide, I gave her, on parting, 24 sous. She burst into tears of a gratitude which could perceive was unfeigned because she was unable to utter a word. She had probably never before received so great an aid. This little attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk, led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe ... The property of this country is absolutely concentered in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not laboring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers and tradesmen, and lastly the class of laboring husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? ... I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property ... another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right ...if for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation.”

smooth · 11-14-2004, 11:26 PM

Publius,

Given that the letter was written over 200 years ago, what do you interpret the bolded part to mean?

Does it mean that legislators ought not to figure out how to make property ownership more equitable?

Or does it meant that legislators are not capable of exhausting ways of making ownserhip more equitable (due to the problems of inequality being so "enormous")?

You don't have to dig up more references, I've seen enough of your knowledge in this area to believe you have a good idea of how this question sits in relation to other information.

Also, I'd like to know whether my facts are correct in this:

The founders were categorically opposed to taxation (as roachboy was responding to this assertion), or taxation without representation?

smooth · 11-14-2004, 11:33 PM

Well Mr. Mephisto, I guess I sidetracked for a second there, but I don't really have much to add after your postings.

Other than to inform you that you had me off the fence until you threw the IMF, WTO, and World Bank into the mix!

Seriously though, I thought those were Brenton Woods organizations instituted after WW2. What is their relation to the UN in terms of their basis for your including them as a function of that international umbrella institution?

Hey look, I found something of an answer:

Quote:

Relations between the Global Economic Institutions and the United Nations

The Monterrey Consensus had a section on "Addressing systemic issues", which was aimed at enhancing the contribution of monetary, financial and trade policy to development. The section identified a variety of problems with the policy-making process. There is a lack of coherence between the global institutions. This can be answered by strengthening the central policy-making role of the United Nations General Assembly and the co-ordinating role of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). For the global economic institutions to make a greater contribution to development they must give more attention to development issues and enhance the participation of developing countries in their decision-making. However, it was recognised that action at the global level cannot be sufficient. There has to be greater co-ordination in each capital city between the various ministries and there must be assistance to developing countries to build their capacity to participate effectively in multilateral forums.

Some NGOs want to address systemic problems through legal enhancement of ECOSOC, but this is not a fruitful approach. It is often assumed that the Fund and the Bank are outside the UN system, when this is not true. They are both "specialised agencies" as defined in the UN Charter, Article 57. In 1947, each approved an agreement to co-operate with the Economic and Social Council and other UN bodies, as provided for in Article 63. There is widespread frustration within the development community because the BWIs have appeared to impose their own agenda on other UN programmes and agencies rather than being subject to review by ECOSOC. Within the current legal regime, calls for ECOSOC to assert direct control over any of the agencies are pointless. Under Article 63, ECOSOC "may co-ordinate the activities of the specialized agencies through consultation with and recommendations to such agencies", but it has no supervisory authority. In practice, although they are legally autonomous, most of the agencies share bureaucratic procedures, co-ordinate programmes and follow the political agenda of the UN. The Fund and the Bank are less integrated in the UN system, because they are financially independent. No politically-feasible reform of the UN system could establish legal authority or financial control by ECOSOC over WHO or UNESCO, let alone the BWIs. This would require amendment of the UN Charter and the constitution of each of the agencies.

Progress may be made by promoting political, rather than legal, integration and since the early 1990s this has been occurring. First, the Bank moved from seeing development as promotion of growth in a country's GDP, to achieving reduction in the number of people living in poverty. In addition to the long-established funding of the work of other UN agencies, the Bank is now engaged in intensive institutional collaboration with the UN through UNAIDS, the Global Environment Facility, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI) and the Global Health Fund. The Fund has realised maintenance of the international financial system involves much more than imposing "sound" economic policy on developing countries. Its acceptance of "social safety nets" was necessary to prevent "IMF riots". Following the financial crises of the late 1990s, the Fund moved into increasing transparency in markets, reducing corruption and promoting stronger administrative and legal systems for financial regulation. None of this directly involved other UN bodies, but it did widen the Fund's remit from a narrow focus on economic policy to consideration of social policy and good governance. Collaboration of the Fund with the Bank at the country level has had to increase, because the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), which provide the framework for its lending to the poorer developing countries, have to be prepared in conjunction with the Bank. One indicator of their engagement in politics is that, starting in 1998, there has been a special meeting of ECOSOC to receive reports from the Spring Meetings. Usually, this has occurred the day after the Spring Meetings close and the Managing Director of the Fund, the President of the Bank, and the ministers chairing the two committees have attended. The heads of the institutions also have a dialogue with ECOSOC at its regular summer session.

The texts of the 1947 agreements between the BWIs and the UN suggest a symmetrical relationship. They provide for exchange of information and representation in each other's meetings. These provisions are not fully implemented, but they should be activated vigorously. The UN Secretary-General and the President of ECOSOC should attend both the Spring and the Fall Meetings every year. Not only the Spring Meetings, but also the Fall Meetings, should report to ECOSOC. At the moment, this is not easy to do because ECOSOC does not normally meet in September and the UN is dominated by heads of government and foreign ministers participating in the General Debate of the General Assembly. However, this situation should be seen as an opportunity rather than an obstacle. If the UN is serious about enhancing its role, the General Assembly could halt work for two days and a high-level special meeting of ECOSOC could discuss the work of the Fund and the Bank.

The 2002 meeting with ECOSOC was held the day after the Spring Meetings and was attended by Trevor Manuel, Chair of the Development Committee; Eduardo Aninat, Deputy Managing Director of the IMF; Shengman Zhang, Managing Director of the World Bank; and Nacer Benjeloun-Touimi, a Senior Adviser at the WTO. After the opening speeches, it broke up into informal discussions. While it did serve to maintain the momentum from Monterrey and strengthen UN-BWI relations, nothing new was added to the global debate on development. One panel requested that in future years the issues for discussion should be more specific. It was also noted, indirectly, that there was a mismatch between the engagement of civil society at Monterrey and their absence from policy-making in the economic institutions. The level of participation and the outcome did not begin to match the call from Monterrey for this meeting to "address issues of coherence, coordination and cooperation".

The real anomaly in the global system is the position of the WTO. It is not a UN specialised agency and it does not operate as a normal diplomatic institution. It does not have a coherent policy-making process. The secretariat is politically weak and understaffed. The organisation lacks sufficient resources to run its own technical assistance programme adequately. There are no provisions for participation by NGOs. It is more surprising that the WTO's Trade Negotiating Committee was unable in April 2002 to agree rules for participation by staff from the Fund, the Bank and UNCTAD, as observers in the Doha Round. The WTO is so secretive and opaque that even its members call for "internal transparency", so that delegates of small countries can know what is happening in their name. Although it is a one-country-one-vote institution, its decision-making to date has been dominated by negotiations between the United States and the European Union. Developing countries have only had any impact at the Ministerial Conferences. At its simplest, the countries without any mission in Geneva cannot hope to exercise any influence on the WTO committees and those with small missions have to select their priorities carefully. All this is slowly changing and the Doha Development Agenda will not be completed unless further substantial change occurs, to make the WTO a more efficient and more legitimate organisation. One major requirement is that it must establish arrangements for other intergovernmental organisations to have observer status, so that it can co-operate with them. It is ridiculous that US opposition to relations with the Arab League prevents the WTO working with the Fund and the Bank. At least the WTO was represented at the ECOSOC meeting and is now committed to attending every year. This is but the first step towards the Monterrey goal of systemic integration. The end result must be the WTO becoming a full UN specialised agency.

-- http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willet...S/APR-2002.HTM

Publius · 11-15-2004, 10:50 AM

Smooth,

Great questions you have posed here so let me answer them the best that I can (with a little help from my friend, Jefferson). In response to your first question concerning the bolded section in Jefferson’s letter to Madison, the answer is the latter “that legislators are not capable of exhausting ways of making ownserhip more equitable (due to the problems of inequality being so "enormous")”. Of course Jefferson is speaking mostly of the property ownership of land but again this must be taken in the context of Jefferson’s view that an agrarian society was ideal. Further down Jefferson notes that, “if for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated (speaking of land at this point), we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation.” Basically what Jefferson is arguing for is that if we allow great inequalities of ownership to arise within society, it will be the duty of the legislators to ensure that these inequalities do not become “so far extended as to violate natural right”.

In response to your second question concerning the “founders” it is first very important to note that lumping all of the “founders” together as having the same thinking is a mistake in itself for like all of us, each of them had significantly different ideas about how taxation (and government) should be handed. If, on the other hand, you are asking what Jefferson’s view was on taxation then I think that his opinion was quit clear and speaks for itself.

Jefferson: to Madison. Paris, Dec. 20, 1787. Speaking on the proposed Constitution for the United States. “I like the power given the Legislature to levy taxes, and for that reason solely approve of the greater house being chosen by the people directly. For tho' I think a house chosen by them will be very illy qualified to legislate for the Union, for foreign nations &c. yet this evil does not weigh against the good of preserving inviolate the fundamental principle that the people are not to be taxed but by representatives chosen immediately by themselves.”

The founders were not (as a whole) so much opposed to taxation as they were to taxation without representation. (It is actually somewhat ironic that the American public actually paid more taxes after the Revolution then they did prior to the King.)

So the real question here is, getting back to the topic of this post, are fees paid to the UN by the US government tantamount to taxation upon the American public without representation? I would argue that they are no more so then much of the taxation policies that our federal government currently has in place today. Why? Most of our tax code is decided with mere tacit consent of the Congress because the Congress has delegated its Constitutional obligation to governmental agencies and only intervenes when it is politically convenient to do so (also note here that nowhere does the Constitution, or for that matter most of the writing of our founders, give any power of taxation to the president, hmmm makes you wonder why he is always talking about it so much like he should be in control of it doesn’t it?). This in itself runs afoul of the ideals held by Jefferson (and other founders).

However, laying these concern aside for the moment and returning to the fact that Congress has been given the power of taxation (see Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, and the 16th amendment) and that the President has the power to make treaties (with the consent of 2/3 of the senate) and shall have the power to appoint Ambassadors (again with the consent of the senate) (see Constitution Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2) then I find the argument that fees paid to the UN amount to a taxation on the US people without due representation unconvincing. Our government has been freely elected (whining liberals about stolen elections be damned), our national leaders have chosen as a matter of foreign policy that the benefits to be gained by participating in the UN offset the fees we are asked (not required) to provide, therefore I am lead to believe that because our elected representatives have determined that it is in the greater interest of our country to participate in this organization, and any dues paid the UN, therefore, were paid as a result of this decision, then the American people have been given representation through their elected government. If the American people believe that this government has not acted in their best interest then they are free to remove its leaders from power and elect those who they believe would do a better job of representing them concerning the best course for US foreign policy.

(As an aside note: for those of you who are interested in learning more about our founders and what they believed I would recommend the following sight. http://www.claremont.org/ The Claremont Institute is a “conservative” intellectual think tank that believes in returning American politics to the ideals of our founders. Many of my professors from my undergraduate studies are Claremont Institute Fellows and contributing writers to this forum ... thus where I gained much of my knowledge of this subject matter.)

roachboy · 11-15-2004, 11:12 AM

it seems to me that most strict constructionists know full well that the desire to return to the founder's ideologies is problematic:
on interpretive grounds (original intent? huh?)
on historical grounds (see above)
and on political grounds (the contradiction it implies between original intent and a precedent-based legal system, for example).

so the motive cannot really lay in the content of their politics--it is more about developing a way to frame attacks on what they understand as "judicial activism" by undercutting the ability of the legal system to respond to changing mores.

they know--we all know--that jefferson was not a prophet. what he wrote was as tied to the period in which he wrote as marx was, as lenin was, as von hayek was. etc etc etc.

it seems this tack brings us to distant shores. it seems difficult to get back from them.

unbzete · 11-15-2004, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

What do you think global capitalism is other than Armed Robbery on a world-wide scale? Committed by the wealthy nations fleecing the poor nations.

whoa...easy there....how about you forget about the ONE Chomsky book you read that made you an expert for just a second.

Armed Robbery implies a violation of un unwilling party, by an aggressor party. Have you ever been to southeast asia? They are thrilled to have those factories and the wages they bring, even if those wages are significantly lower than in America. But comparing american wages and lifestyles to those in Asia, or French lifestyles to those in Russia for that matter, is plain ignorance.

Manx · 11-15-2004, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unbzete

whoa...easy there....how about you forget about the ONE Chomsky book you read that made you an expert for just a second.

Armed Robbery implies a violation of un unwilling party, by an aggressor party. Have you ever been to southeast asia? They are thrilled to have those factories and the wages they bring

I have never read Chomsky nor have I been to SE Asia. But I have been to a textile factory in Mexico and spent a few nights in a tar hut shanty town where most of the workers lived. I was involved in filming a documentary about the poor working conditions in factories which supplied U.S. manufacturers with goods. Within a few minutes of walking into the building, a couple of people on the film crew passed out due to the intense fumes of the chemicals used to process the fabrics and materials. Beyond the horrendous working conditions in the factory, the shanty town was comprised of ramshackle housing, some made from cardboard, where entire extended families lived and worked at the factory.

"Thrilled" is not the word I would use to sum up the feelings of the people I met. Maybe "hopeless suffering" would be more accurate.

aliali · 11-15-2004, 01:30 PM

Here is some more info on the UN's oil-for-food program, the corruption, and the stalling of the investigation: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer.

Mojo_PeiPei · 11-15-2004, 03:17 PM

Hilarious.... The report out today, 21 billion dollars in kickbacks for Saddam from the Oil for Food program, 2x as much as they expected.

alansmithee · 11-15-2004, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i have to say that tarl's post above is appalling.

that poverty is somehow normal, somehow acceptable, is not only ethically regunant but is also not good business because it builds an element of social instability into the heart of capitalism--and capitalism, for all the ideology of freedom that floats with it, in the same huge white porcelain bowl, requires social stability to operate. even as the system itself undermines it.

Milton Friedman won a Nobel Prize in economics for proving that poverty is not just a byproduct, but a necessity in a capitolistic society.

smooth · 11-15-2004, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

Milton Friedman won a Nobel Prize in economics for proving that poverty is not just a byproduct, but a necessity in a capitolistic society.

Both statements are true:

capitalism needs social stability to keep chugging along. otherwise the unhappy (impoverished) might rise up. it also costs a hell of a lot of money to control a pissed of and disenfranchised population (witness wars and imprisonment).

capitalism also needs poverty to keep chugging. there are so many reasons that it's difficult to list them. maybe from the outset I can list it gives us a good reason to work hard. gives us a scapegoat when things go wrong. gives the entire system a ready work force to do the grunge work. keeps wages lower.

What you are pointing out would probably be best understood as one of the internal inconsistencies within capitalism. marx believed that capitalism sowed its own seeds of destruction by creating conditions that were objectively incompatible with each other (need social stability, need social instability). Thus, once the inconsistencies became apparent, challenges would arise and the system would implode.

So we are left with discussing the theoretical implications of capitalism versus what we are working with currently. Given that capitalism is here, its global, and doesn't really look to be on the decline in the near future, there is still an argument over how it operates.

There is nothing "natural" about the way any economic system works. Economic interaction, like I would argue all human interaction, is a social construction. That doesn't make it fake or illusory, but it does mean that human beings can change the rules. There is no external, objective, intrisic force that prevents human beings from realizing a different "flavor" of capitalism. But to the extent that we reify capitalism, we will be unable to understand that there are no rules other than the ones we ourselves create.

At some points in time, capitalists have come to understand this and promote stablizing programs. I'm not too happy about it, I'd like the thing to wither away myself. But we'd need to look at Friedman's writings more carefully to assess whether he also understood that the "necessity" of poverty to the smooth running capitalist economy must be understood with a healthy dose of realization that the long-term effects create very real problems to the system.

Ustwo · 11-15-2004, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

At some points in time, capitalists have come to understand this and promote stablizing programs. I'm not too happy about it, I'd like the thing to wither away myself. But we'd need to look at Friedman's writings more carefully to assess whether he also understood that the "necessity" of poverty to the smooth running capitalist economy must be understood with a healthy dose of realization that the long-term effects create very real problems to the system.

Poverty is relative.

Poverty in the developed world is wealth in the developing world.

Most people who complain about poverty in nations like the US have never seen true poverty.

smooth · 11-15-2004, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Poverty is relative.

Poverty in the developed world is wealth in the developing world.

Most people who complain about poverty in nations like the US have never seen true poverty.

Of course poverty is relative, but we measure it absolutely.

I'd much rather we measure relative poverty, but then our numbers of impoverished would be staggering. (BTW, relative poverty is measured by those living under half of the median income).

I don't know how you can come up with a statement that others haven't seen "true" poverty, which implies an objective state, when you started with the notion that poverty is relative.

There are a number of misconceptions packed into your second sentence, but that's not for this thread I think.

Suave · 11-15-2004, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

Milton Friedman won a Nobel Prize in economics for proving that poverty is not just a byproduct, but a necessity in a capitolistic society.

It's sad that they'd give away a Nobel Prize for something so obvious. I figured that out myself the first time I decided to think about it logically.

nofnway · 11-16-2004, 12:06 PM

Wow....You all certainly have a lot to say.

I was called away by a family crisis and ended up half way across the country....I am still studying the info from Mr. mephisto's first post and weighing in all of the comments. and can't wait to finish reading all of the posts.

Tarl Cabot · 11-17-2004, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Hilarious.... The report out today, 21 billion dollars in kickbacks for Saddam from the Oil for Food program, 2x as much as they expected.

What, no comments on this? Maybe more than a link should appear:

Hussein's illegal oil revenue put at $21.3 billion

'Staggering' violations of U.N. sanctions seen

By Pauline Jelinek and Desmond Butler
ASSOCIATED PRESS

November 16, 2004

WASHINGTON – Over more than a decade, Saddam Hussein's government raised more than $21.3 billion in illegal revenue by subverting U.N. sanctions against Iraq, including the humanitarian oil-for-food program, congressional investigators estimated yesterday.

That's double the $10 billion the Iraqi president previously was alleged to have siphoned off.

The earlier estimate included only the oil-for-food program. The new, higher number includes illicit profits from efforts like the illegal smuggling of oil in the years of sanctions that preceded the humanitarian program that began in 1996.

"The magnitude of fraud perpetrated by Saddam Hussein in contravention of U.N. sanctions and the oil-for-food program is staggering," Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., said yesterday as his Senate Government Affairs permanent subcommittee on investigations began a hearing on the matter.

--*--

Of course, Saddam had to learn to survive Bill Clinton speaking very, very sternly about him.

Mephisto2 · 11-18-2004, 11:48 AM

My God!!

There was some corruption by Saddam Hussein!! Well then, we should disband the UN entirely.

We can't have any hint of corruption in a cross-national body. No no no...

The same way we should disband Haliburton and the US Military and NATO and the EU and NAFTA and the IMF and the.... ad nauseum

/SARCASM

Mr Mephisto

smooth · 11-18-2004, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

My God!!

There was some corruption by Saddam Hussein!! Well then, we should disband the UN entirely.

We can't have any hint of corruption in a cross-national body. No no no...

The same way we should disband Haliburton and the US Military and NATO and the EU and NAFTA and the IMF and the.... ad nauseum

/SARCASM

Mr Mephisto

I watched some interviews last night on Free Speech TV by Democracy Now!. One man was the UN Assistant Secretary (I may have that title incorrect, he was the guy directly under Annan). He, along with others, resigned once the sanctions were placed, I believe is what he said.

Anyway, the point is, (oh yeah, he is in Ireland, as well) that he stated everyone knew what was going on. There was no scandal. All the deals between Turkey and Iraq were known to the US government, and allowed because they were economically harmed by the sanctions but are our allies. He said that the individuals who may have taken bribes ought to be punished if they stepped outside the boundaries, but as far as the billions of dollars being shifted around, that was all known to the world stage.

In fact, he reminded the audience that quite a number of US companies directly and indirectly benefitted from the trading. I don't remember all of the details, but it will either be shown again or maybe is posted on DemocracyNow!'s website (if they post streaming video of their segments, I don't know).

aliali · 11-18-2004, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

My God!!

There was some corruption by Saddam Hussein!! Well then, we should disband the UN entirely.

We can't have any hint of corruption in a cross-national body. No no no...

The same way we should disband Haliburton and the US Military and NATO and the EU and NAFTA and the IMF and the.... ad nauseum

/SARCASM

Mr Mephisto

The corruption is not just by Hussein, and, while not a reason to disband the U.N., is a proper subject of debate in a forum relating to why some may have a general negative reaction to the U.N.

Your position seems to be that the U.N. does lots and lots of good things reasonably well that don't necessarily get big headlines. That's fine, but are you saying the corruption, which now appears to have lead to the funding of terrorists, isn't worthy of honest debate or should not be considered when evaluating the U.N.?

You have put a lot of thought and typing into your defense of the U.N. (which I think everyone here appreciates), but are we just like lawyers here--hired to pick a side--or can we talk about all of the issues and try to put them into context?

For me, I think the corruption is a bad thing, particularly when you look at the nations involved in the oil-for-food program. I think the U.N. is pretty weak in international peacekeeping, slow to react when genocide or massive catastrophies hit, fails to stand by its resolutions if force may be required, and leans a little to anti-US in my opinion. I think it does a lot of humanitarian good, but wastes a lot of money and is inefficient in many respects. I think it is a mixed bag. We shouldn't disband it, but should not be afraid to criticize it.

Imagine if the Bush administration were responsible for similar corruption in the U.S., had tried to block any investigation, and tried to defend itself by saying that it spends a lot of money on kids programs and aids research and poverty programs. I think this thread would read a little differently.

Manx · 11-18-2004, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aliali

Imagine if the Bush administration were responsible for similar corruption in the U.S., had tried to block any investigation, and tried to defend itself by saying that it spends a lot of money on kids programs and aids research and poverty programs.

I don't even have to imagine it.

Other than the portion I quoted of your post, I agree with you. There is room for an honest discussion of the corruption of the U.N. But only after the discussion over whether or not the U.N. is totally worthless has been completed. If there is no middle ground from one side (those who despise the U.N.), there is no value in discussing the very real corruption of the organization.

aliali · 11-18-2004, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

I don't even have to imagine it.

That was assumed and you have no problem criticizing the administration even though many of the things the government does helps the poor, educates the people, gives money to third-world programs for health care and otherwise does things with good intentions. If there is corruption, lying, stealing and the like you want to know about it and want those in charge sent home.

Mojo_PeiPei · 11-18-2004, 12:44 PM

Quote:

For me, I think the corruption is a bad thing, particularly when you look at the nations involved in the oil-for-food program. I think the U.N. is pretty weak in international peacekeeping, slow to react when genocide or massive catastrophies hit, fails to stand by its resolutions if force may be required, and leans a little to anti-US in my opinion. I think it does a lot of humanitarian good, but wastes a lot of money and is inefficient in many respects. I think it is a mixed bag. We shouldn't disband it, but should not be afraid to criticize it.

Very well said.

Manx · 11-18-2004, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aliali

That was assumed and you have no problem criticizing the administration even though many of the things the government does helps the poor, educates the people, gives money to third-world programs for health care and otherwise does things with good intentions. If there is corruption, lying, stealing and the like you want to know about it and want those in charge sent home.

Absolutely. And my point is, it doesn't mean I want the entire U.S. gov't disbanded (or have all states withdraw from it). I'm all for improving things. But as I said, there's no value in discussing the problems if a large group of people have already determined their solution is to throw the baby out with the bath water.

aliali · 11-18-2004, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

Absolutely. And my point is, it doesn't mean I want the entire U.S. gov't disbanded (or have all states withdraw from it). I'm all for improving things. But as I said, there's no value in discussing the problems if a large group of people have already determined their solution is to throw the baby out with the bath water.

You don't want the government disbanded, but you want the administration held accountable and you wanted them to lose the election. I'm just saying it is as valid to discuss the U.N.'s shortcomings as their successes. If the powers that be are involved in corruption, then maybe there should be an investigation and consequences.

Not everyone that criticizes the U.N. wants it disbanded, most don't. Because some do is no reason to view the U.N. with rose-colored glasses and not debate the good and bad. The original post seemed to be an honest request for information and debate on the U.N. as a whole.

Manx · 11-18-2004, 01:58 PM

As I said, I agree with you. The original post is essentially worthwhile. But it was followed by a number of posts from people asserting and defending their assertions that the U.S. should withdraw from the U.N. Hardly productive contributions or productive methods of thinking through problems.

Mephisto2 · 11-18-2004, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aliali

Your position seems to be that the U.N. does lots and lots of good things reasonably well that don't necessarily get big headlines. That's fine, but are you saying the corruption, which now appears to have lead to the funding of terrorists, isn't worthy of honest debate or should not be considered when evaluating the U.N.?

First, let me welcome your eminently reasonable post. It's a lot better than the "UN is an evil organization" kind of pap we had earlier. Now to the point at hand.

Do I think corruption should be ignored or accepted without criticism? Absolutely not. In fact, if you check my posts, I've noted that there are problems and that they need to be addressed; I've said this consistently from my very first post.

I drew analogies (which everyone knows should not be taken literally) between other "corrupt" organizations and the UN. No one (in their right mind) suggests things are always black and white.

The UN = imperfect, therefore it should be disbanded.

Nope. I'm afraid not.

The UN = imperfect, like everything else in this world, therefore it should be improved whilst not forgetting the incalculable good it does.

Quote:

For me, I think the corruption is a bad thing, particularly when you look at the nations involved in the oil-for-food program. I think the U.N. is pretty weak in international peacekeeping, slow to react when genocide or massive catastrophies hit, fails to stand by its resolutions if force may be required, and leans a little to anti-US in my opinion.

The corruption is a bad thing. But you have to consider that it wasn't the UN profiting from the corruption, but corrupt individuals and companies (many of them American also). If one Senator is corrupt, you don't criticise the Senate! You improve things to try to avoid it happening again, but you don't accuse the Senate of being evil or conspiratorial etc.

With regards to the UN being weak in peacekeeping, you have to remember that the UN has no forces of its own. It relies upon a Security Council decision to deploy troops and upon constituent member states in supplying those troops. Unless you allow the UN to have its own forces (and no one is suggesting that), or empower it to compell countries to provide troops, then this is an unfortunate reality. And I can only imagine the howls of derision that would entail if I suggested that UN be allowed to compell America to furnish troops and material; which I don't believe it should by the way.

Secondly, the UN has done massive good with its existing peace-keeping efforts in Burundi, Cote D'Ivoire, Liberia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sierra Leone, Western Sahara, Haiti, East Timor, India, Pakistan, Cyprus, Georgia, Kosovo, The Golan Heights, Lebannon and the Middle East.

Has it deployed troops everywhere it should? Absolutely not.
Why not? Because the proposals have been vetoed (by the US in several circumstances), because the political will has not been there or the troops have not been forthcoming. Ireland, I'm happy to say, has a long history of providing UN PeaceKeepers when requested. But Australia (where I live) is not as generous; neither is the US.

Is the UN slow to react to genocide and ethnic cleansing? Yes, I believe it is. And some recent travesties are terrible examples of this (Rwanda and Sudan etc).

But the UN often has its hands tied. People have to get it into their heads that it's not the UN that is delaying things (do you really believe some bureaucrat in New York is sitting in an office gleefully stamping DENIED on requests for aid and assistance?), but that it is the fact that consensus is needed before proceeding. In other words, there is often much time spent debating rather than acting. And whilst as long as the UN remains a "voluntary body" this will continue. Nation states put their own selfish goals ahead of the common good. Countries play politics will General Assembly proclamations or support for Security Council proposals. It's politics and it's unfortunate as it costs people their lives. But the UN saves far far more lives that are lost by inaction. Inaction that would be endemic were the UN not to exist in the first place.

You mention that the UN is slightly anti-US. Well, the General Assembly may be that way but, I hate to tell you, that's because the world is slightly anti-US. The UN acts as the GA and Security Council dictates. Often the GA will vote a particular resolution or proclamation (and they are all entirely non-binding) but it is the Security Council that has the teeth, if you will. And there the US has more power than anyone else.

Quote:

I think it does a lot of humanitarian good, but wastes a lot of money and is inefficient in many respects. I think it is a mixed bag. We shouldn't disband it, but should not be afraid to criticize it.

I agree with you 100%

I'm also not trying to avoid debate (indeed, I think I'm doing my best to foster debate), but I am reacting to some of the sillier statements made on this thread.

I've it before and I'll say it again. The UN is so very very much more than the Security Council and the General Assembly. Without it the world would be an unquestionably worse place. But like all huge bureaucracies, it needs constant improvement and maybe even some fundamental changes.

Mr Mephisto

aliali · 11-18-2004, 05:50 PM

Well, I don't have much left to complain about and can't say there is much disagreement on my part with the above. Two thoughts though:

1) Re: the oil-for-food problem, I don't think the analogy to a single senator being corrupt is quite apt--I think the corruption is tied directly with the U.N. personnel relating to a U.N. administered program. I think it is more like an administration that violates the law by systematically and illegally aiding its contributors and, is therefore, a governmental problem that cannot be blamed solely on the contributors that profitted.

2) About the resolutions of the security council, and I may be focusing too much on Iraq, it seems that there is a lot of talking and foot stomping, but too much reluctance to follow through when threats made. That may be a product of the nations involved, I don't know, but I think it weakens the power of the institution.

Edit: Here is another story relating to screw-ups at the highest level and a potential no-confidence vote for Annan. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...n_041119115027

KMA-628 · 11-19-2004, 11:30 AM

ouch

The UN staff union, in what officials said was the first vote of its kind in the more than 50-year history of the United Nations, was set to approve a resolution withdrawing support for the embattled Annan and senior UN management.

News like this and the other problems surrounding the UN and Annan this year make the entire establishment look bad.

Other than the obvious impotence of the UN (security-wise), my biggest problem with the UN has been this guy and I will not shed a tear should he lose his position.

Edit: I just saw that aliali's posted the saem link

11-14-2004, 11:26 PM	#83 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	Publius, Given that the letter was written over 200 years ago, what do you interpret the bolded part to mean? Does it mean that legislators ought not to figure out how to make property ownership more equitable? Or does it meant that legislators are not capable of exhausting ways of making ownserhip more equitable (due to the problems of inequality being so "enormous")? You don't have to dig up more references, I've seen enough of your knowledge in this area to believe you have a good idea of how this question sits in relation to other information. Also, I'd like to know whether my facts are correct in this: The founders were categorically opposed to taxation (as roachboy was responding to this assertion), or taxation without representation? __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

11-15-2004, 11:12 AM	#86 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it seems to me that most strict constructionists know full well that the desire to return to the founder's ideologies is problematic: on interpretive grounds (original intent? huh?) on historical grounds (see above) and on political grounds (the contradiction it implies between original intent and a precedent-based legal system, for example). so the motive cannot really lay in the content of their politics--it is more about developing a way to frame attacks on what they understand as "judicial activism" by undercutting the ability of the legal system to respond to changing mores. they know--we all know--that jefferson was not a prophet. what he wrote was as tied to the period in which he wrote as marx was, as lenin was, as von hayek was. etc etc etc. it seems this tack brings us to distant shores. it seems difficult to get back from them. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

11-15-2004, 03:17 PM	#90 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Hilarious.... The report out today, 21 billion dollars in kickbacks for Saddam from the Oil for Food program, 2x as much as they expected. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

11-16-2004, 12:06 PM	#96 (permalink)
nofnway Insane Location: under the freeway bridge	Wow....You all certainly have a lot to say. I was called away by a family crisis and ended up half way across the country....I am still studying the info from Mr. mephisto's first post and weighing in all of the comments. and can't wait to finish reading all of the posts. __________________ "Iron rusts with disuse, stagnant water loses its purity and in cold water freezes. Even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind" Leonardo Da Vinci

11-18-2004, 05:50 PM	#108 (permalink)
aliali Insane Location: Missouri	Well, I don't have much left to complain about and can't say there is much disagreement on my part with the above. Two thoughts though: 1) Re: the oil-for-food problem, I don't think the analogy to a single senator being corrupt is quite apt--I think the corruption is tied directly with the U.N. personnel relating to a U.N. administered program. I think it is more like an administration that violates the law by systematically and illegally aiding its contributors and, is therefore, a governmental problem that cannot be blamed solely on the contributors that profitted. 2) About the resolutions of the security council, and I may be focusing too much on Iraq, it seems that there is a lot of talking and foot stomping, but too much reluctance to follow through when threats made. That may be a product of the nations involved, I don't know, but I think it weakens the power of the institution. Edit: Here is another story relating to screw-ups at the highest level and a potential no-confidence vote for Annan. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...n_041119115027 Last edited by aliali; 11-19-2004 at 10:01 AM..

11-15-2004, 10:50 AM	#85 (permalink)
Publius Crazy Location: Never Never Land	Smooth, Great questions you have posed here so let me answer them the best that I can (with a little help from my friend, Jefferson). In response to your first question concerning the bolded section in Jefferson’s letter to Madison, the answer is the latter “that legislators are not capable of exhausting ways of making ownserhip more equitable (due to the problems of inequality being so "enormous")”. Of course Jefferson is speaking mostly of the property ownership of land but again this must be taken in the context of Jefferson’s view that an agrarian society was ideal. Further down Jefferson notes that, “if for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated (speaking of land at this point), we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation.” Basically what Jefferson is arguing for is that if we allow great inequalities of ownership to arise within society, it will be the duty of the legislators to ensure that these inequalities do not become “so far extended as to violate natural right”. In response to your second question concerning the “founders” it is first very important to note that lumping all of the “founders” together as having the same thinking is a mistake in itself for like all of us, each of them had significantly different ideas about how taxation (and government) should be handed. If, on the other hand, you are asking what Jefferson’s view was on taxation then I think that his opinion was quit clear and speaks for itself. Jefferson: to Madison. Paris, Dec. 20, 1787. Speaking on the proposed Constitution for the United States. “I like the power given the Legislature to levy taxes, and for that reason solely approve of the greater house being chosen by the people directly. For tho' I think a house chosen by them will be very illy qualified to legislate for the Union, for foreign nations &c. yet this evil does not weigh against the good of preserving inviolate the fundamental principle that the people are not to be taxed but by representatives chosen immediately by themselves.” The founders were not (as a whole) so much opposed to taxation as they were to taxation without representation. (It is actually somewhat ironic that the American public actually paid more taxes after the Revolution then they did prior to the King.) So the real question here is, getting back to the topic of this post, are fees paid to the UN by the US government tantamount to taxation upon the American public without representation? I would argue that they are no more so then much of the taxation policies that our federal government currently has in place today. Why? Most of our tax code is decided with mere tacit consent of the Congress because the Congress has delegated its Constitutional obligation to governmental agencies and only intervenes when it is politically convenient to do so (also note here that nowhere does the Constitution, or for that matter most of the writing of our founders, give any power of taxation to the president, hmmm makes you wonder why he is always talking about it so much like he should be in control of it doesn’t it?). This in itself runs afoul of the ideals held by Jefferson (and other founders). However, laying these concern aside for the moment and returning to the fact that Congress has been given the power of taxation (see Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, and the 16th amendment) and that the President has the power to make treaties (with the consent of 2/3 of the senate) and shall have the power to appoint Ambassadors (again with the consent of the senate) (see Constitution Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2) then I find the argument that fees paid to the UN amount to a taxation on the US people without due representation unconvincing. Our government has been freely elected (whining liberals about stolen elections be damned), our national leaders have chosen as a matter of foreign policy that the benefits to be gained by participating in the UN offset the fees we are asked (not required) to provide, therefore I am lead to believe that because our elected representatives have determined that it is in the greater interest of our country to participate in this organization, and any dues paid the UN, therefore, were paid as a result of this decision, then the American people have been given representation through their elected government. If the American people believe that this government has not acted in their best interest then they are free to remove its leaders from power and elect those who they believe would do a better job of representing them concerning the best course for US foreign policy. (As an aside note: for those of you who are interested in learning more about our founders and what they believed I would recommend the following sight. http://www.claremont.org/ The Claremont Institute is a “conservative” intellectual think tank that believes in returning American politics to the ideals of our founders. Many of my professors from my undergraduate studies are Claremont Institute Fellows and contributing writers to this forum ... thus where I gained much of my knowledge of this subject matter.)

11-15-2004, 01:30 PM	#89 (permalink)
aliali Insane Location: Missouri	Here is some more info on the UN's oil-for-food program, the corruption, and the stalling of the investigation: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer.

11-18-2004, 11:48 AM	#98 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	My God!! There was some corruption by Saddam Hussein!! Well then, we should disband the UN entirely. We can't have any hint of corruption in a cross-national body. No no no... The same way we should disband Haliburton and the US Military and NATO and the EU and NAFTA and the IMF and the.... ad nauseum /SARCASM Mr Mephisto

11-18-2004, 01:58 PM	#106 (permalink)
Manx Loser	As I said, I agree with you. The original post is essentially worthwhile. But it was followed by a number of posts from people asserting and defending their assertions that the U.S. should withdraw from the U.N. Hardly productive contributions or productive methods of thinking through problems.

11-19-2004, 11:30 AM	#109 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	ouch The UN staff union, in what officials said was the first vote of its kind in the more than 50-year history of the United Nations, was set to approve a resolution withdrawing support for the embattled Annan and senior UN management. News like this and the other problems surrounding the UN and Annan this year make the entire establishment look bad. Other than the obvious impotence of the UN (security-wise), my biggest problem with the UN has been this guy and I will not shed a tear should he lose his position. Edit: I just saw that aliali's posted the saem link Last edited by KMA-628; 11-19-2004 at 11:34 AM..