The UN Oil for Palaces Program

[Hard-Luck Henry]

Oil for Food My Foot

Few of us give a whit about the so-called Oil for Food scandal. It’s little more than a pet project for neocon Republicans, so-called “conservatives” in Washington, and like-minded folks at the United Nations and in the British Commons.

I find it astonishing that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, with the power and resources it has to investigate just about whoever and whatever it pleases, is allowed to be used to serve the interests of it's member, and their own personal crusades. They could be investigating government efficiency, corporate or individual or organised crime, national security matters, whatever - for the benefit of the whole country, but Norm and his cronies choose to bring that power to bear to go after Galloway and Kofi Anan, for their own political ends.

"Go figure". :dontknow:

 

[jimmoyer]

Sin and corruption does not live only in the places you think, Hard Luck Henry.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Sorry, it is realistic to say that the UN resists change and audits. Partisans on both sides of the UN see that.

That realism is generally driven by the five permanent members of the Security Council, Jimmy. The US has, over the years, been at the forefront of resisting UN reforms. They are, through John Bolton, resisting meaningful reforms right now even while they undermine the authority and legitimacy of the United Nations.

Annan, who has been the main target of the neo-cons' attacks on the United Nations and multi-lateralism as a whole, has been pushing for reforms since before he was Secretary General. Those reforms do not serve the agenda of the radical right in the United States and have made Annan a target.

So spin all you want, Jimmy. The facts show your political masters to be the problem, not the solution.

 

[jimmoyer]

I don't think Kofi Anan is all that bad and I do see that he has often talked of reform in an impossible situation.

That his son was implicated in slicing off a piece of the pie is not something he might have been able to monitor with the mountain load of work he has just to keep up.

My spin on this matter is not as extreme an overreaction as yours.

I'm just saying that most of the UN in total is guilty of resisting honest reform.

And most people who work there know this.

 

[Reverend Blair]

That his son was implicated in slicing off a piece of the pie is not something he might have been able to monitor with the mountain load of work he has just to keep up.

If we are going to start holding public officials responsible for the actions of their adult children, the George H.W. Bush should have been jailed for the actions of his son Neil and George W. Bush should be in rehab for the actions of his daughters.

My spin on this matter is not as extreme an overreaction as yours.

Your spin on this ignores documented fact in favour of op-ed articles put out by PNAC supporters.

I'm just saying that most of the UN in total is guilty of resisting honest reform.

Most people in any given organisation will resist change. Because of the way the United Nations is structured, the five permanent members of the Secutrity Council are the ones most able to resist change. The voting record of that body shows that the US has been most resistant to change, followed by the USSR (not Russia) and China. Add in the lobbying efforts of the US government and interests they represent, then figure in their threats and backroom dealing which have become public over the years, and it becomes clear that the only change the US is interested in seeing is change that gives it power to the detriment of all other nations.

Do you blame those other nations for resisting reforms that would give the US power over them?

 

[jimmoyer]

If the US has all this amazing backround power, then you couldn't explain away half the decisions made by the UN against US interests.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: The UN Oil for Palace

The US does not have absolute power though, Jimmy. You have been seeking it though and, as a part of that seeking, resisting meaningful UN reform.

 

[jimmoyer]

That was too tortured a rationale to blame UN reform entirely upon one country. It is too simplistic. Too gullible in thinking there are no special interests protected by other countries. Is it not too extremist to insist that their special interests are automatically better than another country's?

All countries press for their own interest.

How altruistic do you think Nigeria is? Or China? Or France? Or Libya? Or Russia?