Give the U.N. a little competition

Center for Security Policy ^ | 6 Dec 05 | Unknown

[LSUfan]

With the 2006-2007 United Nations budget set to pass later this month without proper allocations in place for much-needed reforms, hope for institutional change is greatly diminishing. Last week, America's able representative to the U.N., John Bolton, attempted to rectify the situation, taking bold steps to delay the biennial budget's approval, citing evidence that none of the prescriptions or conclusions for reform agreed upon at the World Summit in September were reflected in the document.

For his unwillingness to allow the world body to continue its pernicious game of smoke-and-mirrors, Amb. Bolton and the country he represents were excoriated by ideologically biased editorial boards and prominent world "leaders." The New York Times, for example, decried Bolton himself as "one of the biggest obstacles to achieving changes." Secretary General Kofi Annan simply dismissed objections raised by the world body's largest financial contributor, claiming that "the business of the U.N. is not reform; the business of the UN is carrying on the mandates that the General Assembly, ECOSOC, and the Security Council have given us."

[ncountylee]

75% of the UN budget is salaries. Hurt them!

[layman]

The United Nations may gain a second wind and a youthful gait if it discovers that it has some real competition

It's worth a try, but I have yet to see a bureaucracy which has been capable of reform ... even when the alternative is to self destruct. Bureaucracies can only expand and become more complex and inefficient to the point of inertia. The U.S. federal government comes to mind.

[proud_yank]

"the business of the U.N. is not reform; the business of the UN is carrying on the mandates that the General Assembly, ECOSOC, and the Security Council have given us. to STEAL STEAL STEAL!!" Kofi Bean said.

[proud_yank]

Some more corrections.....

1) The United Nations' specialized programs depend on voluntary financing from member states, and we should direct our money to those that are cost-effective. not give the United Nothings another dime!

2) The United Nations may gain a second wind and a youthful gait if it discovers that it has some real competition. Or, it more likely will be unable to compete and will be plowed under! One can only hope...

[penowa]

Why are we giving any money to this anti-semitic terrorist-loving organization? Why are these criminals allowed to remain on American soil?

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Give the UN a little M.O.A.B.

[Tommyjo]

You do remember President Bush's speech to the UN?


"As an original signer of the U.N. Charter, the United States of America is committed to the United Nations. And we show that commitment by working to fulfill the U.N.'s stated purposes, and give meaning to its ideals. The founding documents of the United Nations and the founding documents of America stand in the same tradition. Both assert that human beings should never be reduced to objects of power or commerce, because their dignity is inherent. Both require -- both recognize a moral law that stands above men and nations, which must be defended and enforced by men and nations. And both point the way to peace, the peace that comes when all are free. We secure that peace with our courage, and we must show that courage together. May God bless you all."

The UN leaving US soil is not going to happen - certainly not under Bush.