Comments on: On the Kofi Table

By: maryatexitzero

maryatexitzero — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:02:13 +0000

From the Financial Times article:

Mr Annan’s officials say the package basically proposes a bargain whereby rich countries help the poor to develop, by promoting the Millennium Development Goals, while poor countries help alleviate rich countries’ security concerns. In both cases, Mr Annan says, action must be underpinned by respect for human rights.

This is, in no uncertain terms, a pathetic attempt at extortion.

If the so-called “poor” countries can effectively alleviate our security concerns, then they must have been the ones causing those concerns in the first place. No deal.

By: Fausta

Fausta — Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:12:56 +0000

Just this morning I was reading that Tuesday is the UN's World Water Day, marking the start of an international decade of action, Water for Life. Maybe Koffi has figured a way to make money out of water, like the unscrupulous developers Jake Gittes was dealing with -- but as far as complete economic transparency by the UN? Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.

By: lawhawk

lawhawk — Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:54:18 +0000

Roger, You've been commenting on transparency of economic matters at the UN for quite some time. I think you need to add accountability of bureaucratic decisions in the Secretariat as well given that the UN admits to paying Benon Sevan's legal bills for months after stonewalling on the issue.

By: Terrye

Terrye — Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:19:31 +0000

It would seem to me that if Kofi and the rest of the UN were really concerned with the developing world they would want this transparency. After all if the money just ends up in a Swiss bank account somewhere it is not helping anyone.

If he is sincere what is the problem with the issue of opening the books? I also think it is time some of these kind of programs started showing some success rate. Otherwise what is the point? I have wondered if some of these third world leaders actually want their people poor because poor people are a great way to make money. Fixing things is the last thing on their minds.

By: Bostonian

Bostonian — Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:13:35 +0000

UN will become transparent the same day Hell freezes over.

By: Barrett

Barrett — Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:03:42 +0000

Yes! The UN should be 100% transparent on an economic basis. Sunlight goes a long way to rooting out corrpution.

The UN is presently a dysfunctional institution, set on the redistribution of Western wealth, mired in politics with no clear mission as its guide and leadership without the courage to pursue what is right. The UN provides an international forum outside of bilateral and multilateral summits and that is the shred of usefulness left to its original purpose.

The US should withhold all payments until the UN is a transparent institution.

By: Canucklehead

Canucklehead — Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:00:04 +0000

Here is another interesting link/analysis on the UN malaise -

A breakup plan for the U.N.

Smaller units could aid U.S. interests, world economies

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/yhoo/story.asp?source=blq/yhoo&siteid=yhoo&dist=yhoo&guid=%7B49B81AC3%2D3D5D%2D4974%2DA5B9%2D473B90F17559%7D

By: Vulgorilla

Vulgorilla — Tue, 22 Mar 2005 17:22:35 +0000

The UN is one of those early 20th century idealistic organizations that has long since served its purpose, and should now be quickly placed on the scrap heap of “Nice idea while it lasted, but no cigar”. It has become one of the true enemies of liberty and freedom, and embodies all that is evil among men. Why we continue to let it exist on US soil is beyond my comprehension. Someone please scrape it from the surface of the planet.