I wrote:

All of which raises 2 interesting questions: if the UN is broken in the way Filippo and I believe it is, what is the logic behind complying with UN resolutions when they are ineffectual at best, and at worst bolster tyrants, breed corruption and victimize the weak, all the while opposing US interests?

To which Merkur replied:

To be more precise your question is, what is the logic of the US complying with UN resolutions? I assume that Saddam Hussein would have used similar logic; why should Iraq have complied with the UN resolutions against it, when they were so clearly ineffectual?

My answer would be that the world is better off with some form of mediation between states, and the UN provides a vehicle for a significant part of that mediation. When you say that UN resolutions “bolster tyrants, breed corruption and victimize the weak”, can you be more specific about which resolutions you have in mind?

Saddam Hussein did use similar logic and did not comply with UN resolutions. Which makes my point: the UN lacks the power to force compliance, even in the case of a mass murderer who had previously used WMD, was believed by most to have them immediately prior to the invasion, and who was by all accounts simply biding his time until sanctions were removed to go into full production of them again. All the while he was profiting from the oil for food kickbacks.

I have nothing against mediation, as along as it shows promise of success.

But I’ve all too often heard the refrain: “We haven’t exhausted negotiations” used seemingly as an excuse to continue talking and an excuse not to act.

The fact is, negotiations are eternal unless there is an incentive to stop them. And the product of negotiations is not always laudible (think “Peace in our time.”).

I would regard resolutions that are not enforced as bolstering tyrants, breeding corruption and victimizing the weak. Saddam Hussein knew full well he had precious little to worry about from the UN since he knew that, after 14 toothless resolutions, the UN would not act against him, even as he violated them.

So the corruption of the OFF program deprived Iraqis of the kinds of humanitarian aid the selling of oil was intended to provide when funds were diverted (surreptitiously) to palaces and dual use programs to keep his WMD programs idling along.

Other tyrants get the same message.

I then wrote:

And what is the argument in favor of continuing the extravagant funding we’ve so generously provided the UN… I’m still left wondering what argument one could muster to justify the huge amount of funding the US contributes to the UN each year.

and Merkur replied:

“Extravagant funding”? The US budget for fiscal year 2007 is $2.8 trillion; the US contribution to the regular UN budget (not including the operational agencies) is $422.7 million, or 0.015% of the national budget.

Irrelevant. The UN is entirely opaque, and for all I know, a vast variety of UN luminaries are squirreling large amounts of it away for personal use, or using it for bribes, or are investing gobs of it in everything from prostitutes to villas.

The OFF program demonstrated corruption on a biblical scale — what we don’t know is how broad and deep the UN’s corruption goes, nor are we likely to find out because the UN is not transparent.

Merkur continues:

The US also contributes a huge amount to the operational agencies as well, for which we should all be thankful. The biggest US contribution is to peacekeeping operations ($1.13 billion), but if you think peacekeeping is a waste of money, fair enough. At this point, you may wish to point out the failure of some peacekeeping operations, while ignoring those that those that might be considered successful.

The failed peacekeeping missions are well documented, as are the human rights violations committed by unpunished peacekeepers under the UN banner.

But don’t forget the peacekeeping missions that have not occurred: Like Rwanda and Sudan.

Forgive my cynicism, but when you claim success for certain UN peacekeeping operations, I have to wonder if the peace was kept because of the UN’s presence or in spite of it, or would have occurred without a UN presence.

Is it just me, or is there something a tad outrageoous about the UN claiming credit for successes which might not be its due, but avoiding responsibility for corruption and human rights violations attached to its agents?

Merkur continues:

The argument for continuing that funding is that it’s a membership fee. You may wish to argue that the US should withdraw its UN membership, but clearly your elected representatives generally disagree with you. I guess their reasons are pretty simple: they believe that the UN can achieve things that the US is either unable or unwilling to do itself.

Oh quite the contrary . . . I think the US should remain in the UN, pay a membership of $500,000, keep its seat on the Security Council, and use the money saved on dues for something else. I’d settle for straight forward humanitarian aid — provided the money was properly accounted for, there were mechanisms in place to hold corrupt and incompetent officials responsible and there was the political will to use such mechanisms — at least from time to time.

I wrote:

The issue isn’t whether individuals of both organizations — the US and the UN — engage in criminal acts. The issue is: i) whether or not both have the power to enforce their edicts; and ii) whether or not they exercise that power.

Merkur replied:

The UN doesn’t have the power to “enforce its edicts” because it wasn’t set up that way, since member states – including the US – wouldn’t and won’t allow infringements of their national sovereignty. I assume you would agree that this should be the case?

Precisely. Pigs can’t fly because they don’t have wings. They weren’t set up that way. And you assume correctly: I’d oppose in the strongest possible way the prospect of the US being subject to UN edicts.

Which simply makes my point: the UN does not have the power to punish people who commit human rights abuses under its banner, because it wasn’t designed that way.

Nor was it designed with the transparency required to ensure unbelievers that it is seriously interested in rooting out corruption in its own bureaucracy, as the single example of OFF and the protective-crouch response of the UN to it is ample evidence.

Each is a “fatal design flaw,” rather like trying to construct a bridge across a river with no bottom (ever see Bridge on the River Kwai?).

I wrote:

The US has the power to bring wrongdoers to justice and the US exercises it.

To which Merkur correctly took me to task:

Really? I didn’t realise that the janjaweed had been stopped in Darfur, and I must have missed the coverage of the trials of Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic. I’m glad to see that the US is going to be trying the murderers of Rafik Hariri; and surely we’ll see North Korea disarming before Christmas. [ . . . ]

That’s my bad — if I’d had my thinking cap on, I’d have written that sentence differently. I’d have qualified it to read: “The US has the power to bring wrongdoers who misbehave under the US banner to justice and the US exercises that power.” (I’d made that qualification in another thread.)

Merkur wrote:

[ . . . ]

None of which, of course, has anything to do with an apartment that the UN Secretary-General previously occupied. Given the scale of the problems that the world faces right now, I find it hard to care much about Kofi’s apartment, particularly as the article offers no evidence of any “wrongdoing” on the part of Kofi Annan himself – only the suggestion of inappropriate behaviour.

I think Clifford May is right: if it were John Bolton and not Kofi Annan, I think the furor would have been much louder (that comment is a general observation only, not directed at Merkur).

Brian