Republicans attack UN over poor record on disaster relief

A close political ally of President George W Bush has launched a fierce attack on the United Nations' ability to handle the aftermath of the tsunami disaster, declaring that some of its agencies had "terrible, terrible records in dealing with people in need".

David Frum, a prominent Republican and former speech writer to Mr Bush, said America's reluctance to allow the UN too free a hand in the relief operation, was based on its poor management record.

"We are not arguing about money, we are arguing about control," he said on BBC Radio 4's Today programe. "It is humane and necessary that the United States and other democracies should be very careful about what happens to their money."

He made his comments hours after Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, denied that Washington was trying to edge out the UN as leader of the international relief effort in the Indian Ocean by forming a core group of nations to organise aid.

After a visit to UN headquarters in New York, Mr Powell said: "In due course we hope the core group will work itself out of business because we will have brought all of the international organisations into play, under the overall supervision and leadership of the United Nations."

In a criticism of the slow pace of UN bureaucracy, Mr Powell said that the countries involved in the group, which includes Australia, India and Japan, had assets which could be "brought to bear right away".

UN officials went to great lengths to conceal the whereabouts of Kofi Annan, the organisation's general secretary, who was on holiday when the tsunami struck and did not surface in New York until Thursday.

In fact, it was revealled that, Mr Annan spent Christmas at the holiday home of James Wolfensohn, the president of the World Bank and a critic of the Bush administration, who owns a 160-acre ranch in the resort of Jackson Hole, Wyoming.

Only a handful of Mr Annan's most trusted advisers were allowed to know his location. One official said: "He did not want to be seen frolicking in the snow. It wouldn't look good." So anxious were UN staff that his first interview, which was with the CNN cable news channel almost three days after the tsunami struck, was conducted by telephone, via the UN's headquarters, and producers of the show were not told where Mr Annan was speaking from.

Last week Washington officials were angered when Jan Egeland, one of the first UN officials to comment on the disaster, declared the initial US aid contribution of $35 million (£18 million) to be "stingy". On Friday the White House announced that the American donation would rise to $350 million.

In his first press conference of the week at UN headquarters on Thursday, Mr Annan insisted that his absence did not matter. "We live in a world where you can operate from wherever you are," he said.

World leaders including the prime ministers of Australia and Japan will gather in Jakarta at an emergency summit on Thursday.

The US is expected to send Mr Powell and Jeb Bush, the governor of Florida and brother of the president, who are beginning a tour of the region today.

Officials said the Florida governor, whom some believe may be positioning himself for an eventual run at the presidency, would draw on his experience of disaster relief following the series of hurricanes that battered his state in recent years.

"In fact, it was revealled that, Mr Annan spent Christmas at the holiday home of James Wolfensohn, the president of the World Bank and a critic of the Bush administration, who owns a 160-acre ranch in the resort of Jackson Hole, Wyoming.

Only a handful of Mr Annan's most trusted advisers were allowed to know his location. One official said: "He did not want to be seen frolicking in the snow. It wouldn't look good." So anxious were UN staff that his first interview, which was with the CNN cable news channel almost three days after the tsunami struck, was conducted by telephone, via the UN's headquarters, and producers of the show were not told where Mr Annan was speaking from.

Last week Washington officials were angered when Jan Egeland, one of the first UN officials to comment on the disaster, declared the initial US aid contribution of $35 million (£18 million) to be "stingy". On Friday the White House announced that the American donation would rise to $350 million."

...........plus real live physical assets such as aircraft carriers, Navy Ships that make potable drinking water (90,000 gallons per day per ship that is 360,000 gallons per day), helicopters, C130s and private donations that are totaling tens of million.

Ahhh, may the UN RIP one day.

From "Winds of Change."

The Toyota Taliban

by Joe Katzman at January 2, 2005 05:12 AM

I've often seen the term "Toyota Taliban" used to refer to non-governmental 'aid' agencies and U.N. bureaucrats. I've even used it myself on occasion. What does it mean, and where does it come from? Here's an excerpt from U.N. Insider's June 04 summary:

In a letter from Kabul, British satirical biweekly Private Eye reported on the private life of international community members in the Afghan capital. It claims that only 16% of the $4.5 billion pledged at the Tokyo conference goes to the government; the rest in the hands of NGO; a term used to refer to "the well heeled" international staff of the U.N. and aid organizations who reportedly spend time shopping for wide screen tvs and laptops at a new Sony Centre. "Most other shopkeepers only ever glimpse them as they are driven past in one of the $75,000 Toyota Landcruisers most of them owned by the U.N. -- known here as the Toyota Taliban," the letter says, adding that the cruisers ferried them from office to restaurant to guest house. It continues: "There's a swimming pool at a central U.N. compound and regular parties and barbecues. Memories of a party held by the DHL courier group last November, when an opium pipe was passed around by U.N. staff, are still fresh. If boredom strikes, aid workers might also sign up for Tai Chi and Argentinean tango lessons."

Additional on-the-scene reports from Instapundit's Afghanistan correspondent Professor John Robert Kelly of Boston University, Congressional Chief of Staff Joseph Eule, and a Roger L. Simon commenter with 18 years experience in Afghanistan add further depth to the picture, in both positive and negative ways. This excerpt from John's comment is especially instructive:

"My experience with the UN over the past 18 years is in Afghanistan. Here's what I've seen since 9/11...sorry for the garritous length.
....An enormous and highly profitable international aid apparatus has assembled in Kabul and has largely ignored the input of the Afghan people or their largely American liberators; the latter stand by in disbelief as taxpayers contributions to Afghanistan disappear into outfitting the extravagant needs of European aid community. The UN pays $400 a day (more than a year’s pay for an average Afghan ) plus a generous per diem. This enormous aid infestation has fostered rightful resentment. The UN and associated NGOs ran through years of aid funding in a matter of months. Now when money cannot be found for reconstruction, the UN issues reports criticizing the parsimonious Americans. Meanwhile, the UN and NGOs live like pashas. Hundreds of millions of dollars earmarked for Afghans have been transformed into fleets of top-of the-line Toyota Landcruisers, villas and estates to house their workers complete with swimming pools, an endless supply of underpaid servants, luxurious furnishings (accented with looted antiquities,) the latest laptops, video equipment, cases of Johnny Walker Blue and the bling bling ...perks that might even seem excessive to Ken Lay are justifiable expenses charged off to the US. No accountability, no oversight. They don’t bother cooking the books, they don’t even keep the books!
Afghan citizens fear that vocal objections to this patronizing treatment will result in economic reprisals by the UN...."

Amazingly, the story gets worse as one continues. To say that John is upset about all this is a massive understatement.
Perhaps this should not be surprising with respect to the U.N., whose makeup and structure nearly guarantees this sort of behaviour. What is clear, however, is that non-governmental NGO "do-gooders" and international bodies deserve closer scrutiny than they usually receive, and require rigorous accountability mechanisms that include the threat of public exposure.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.