Roger L. Simon: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...

After the notorious Great Oil-for-Food Heist, Kofi Annan's "reform," as Claudia Rosett points out, calls for buckets more money:

For the core [UN] budget alone, the U.S. has been assessed this year for well over $400 million, or somewhere in the neighborhood of more than 10 times the amounts paid by China and Russia combined. That's despite the reality that though both those countries also find funding enough at home to field lively military programs, both--like the U.S.--enjoy permanent seats on the Security Council. And neither is exactly a force for enlightened governance.

For the U.S. alone, where gross national income now totals about $11 trillion, that would add up to more than $82 billion per year--by itself more than 10 times what the U.N. has already failed miserably to manage well. And though Mr. Annan does not spell out exactly how such official aid would "officially" reach its intended beneficiaries, the clear implication is that it would go through the "official" U.N.--generating a great gush of cash, with no more need for the U.N. to worry about reform, or Mr. Annan and his successors even to strain themselves sending staffers to lobby Washington, or signing self-laudatory Op-eds.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

Roger, don't forget the biggest UN boondoggle of all: the renovation of the UN building in Turtle Bay, which Kofi pegs at $1.2B -- even though major NYC real estate developers estimate it should not cost, absolute max, more than 40% of that figure.

Writing in the Weekly Standard, Powerline's John Hinderaker has more dirt on Don Kofi's expansion into real estate scammery: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/621yvchq.asp

In a speech on the Senate floor on April 6, 2005, Senator Jeff Sessions recounted his conversation with Trump:

Let me share this story with you, which is pretty shocking to me. The $1.2 billion loan the United Nations wants is to renovate a building. Some member of the United Nations, a delegate, apparently, from Europe, had read in the newspaper in New York that Mr. Donald Trump . . . had just completed the Trump World Tower--not a 30-story building like the United Nations, but a 90-story building, for a mere $350 million, less than one-third of that cost. So the European United Nations delegate was curious about the $1.2 billion they were spending on the United Nations. He knew he didn't know what the real estate costs are in New York.

So, he called Mr. Trump and they discussed it. Mr. Trump told him that building he built for $350 million was the top of the line. It has the highest quality of anything you would need in it. They discussed the matter, and an arrangement was made for Mr. Trump to meet Kofi Annan, Secretary-General, to discuss the concerns. . . . So according to Mr. Trump, who I talked to personally this morning, they go meet with Mr. Annan, who had asked some staff member to be there . . . When the European asked how these numbers could happen, Mr. Trump said the only way would be because of incompetence, or fraud

The issue goes far beyond UN fraud. The real question that needs to be answered is, as regards development expenditure, what value is added by the UN's bureaucratic apparat?

In light of the absurd experience of the tsumani relief episode-- in which UN and other NGO-brokered aid containers are still sitting in ports in Indonesia, more than half a year after arrival, and millions have been thrown away on graft and incompetence-- why should the UN be allowed to intermediate at all?

"(T)he proposal that developed countries contribute 0.7% of their gross domestic income to the cause of 'official development assistance" sounds like a Soderbergh biggest-heist-in-history premise for Turtle Bay's Eleven.

I was meditating on this very issue in a very hot room with no air conditioning for the past month or so. In between getting whacked on the back with a very big stick as punishment for my mind wandering to the luxury of having a cheeseburger at Gitmo I could sometimes hear the words "hey hey ho ho Annan and the UN gotta go" echoing from the land where the enlightened live into the deepest reaches of my mind. The guy sitting next to me said he could hear the same. So we think there is consensus in Nirvana. Though since what is thought in Nirvana normally stays in Nirvana, and the floating world being what it is, it'll never happen. Sadly. On the other hand I do enjoy Rosett's reporting. So the UN is good for something. And might I add, why hasn't that guy with the mustache been confirmed?!!

The thought of US taxpayers handing over $82 billion per annum to the UN makes me laugh out loud. Calling our resident shrinks. Kofi needs you to talk him down from the delusional ledge on which he totters.

The Cult of the UN wants the American people, and presumably all taxpayers everywhere, to tithe.

$82B from the US alone! The lil' feller's got chutzpah, you gotta give him that.

Work, work. Or play. But definitely not a vacation. I sure hope Amnesty I. doesn't make a tour of some of the more serious Zen temples I know. They'd want to haul all our asses before Kofi's court. Not saying Gitmo ain't tough, as it should be, but it ain't no gulag. Sorry about being off topic, but I'm trying to catch up on all the news and my drinking at the same time. As for the UN,
close it down, or turn it into the Model UN--lots of talk and no money. Or give it to France. Who says I don't like France?

France has the facilities in Strasbourg, if the EU Parliament would ever consider consolidating its current dual-location Brussels/Strasbourg arrangement to simply operating from Brussels.

Just imagine:
NY would be a much better place, and parking would improve.
The French would be happy.
An operational base in France, from the UN's point of view, would make all those pesky requests for transparency a lot less pesky.
A win-win scenario!

Nice post Fausta! But having little hair and and having to shave off the rest, your blog's name brought a tear to my eye.

If they try to bring it to Japan they're in for a rude awakening, we let our guard down with "Kyoto" (The infamy) and that'll never happen again.

Just to provide another perspective on $82 billion: Hewlett-Packard's approximately 150,000 employees generated $80 billion in revenue for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2004. If I have to choose between Hewlett-Packard and the UN, I choose Hewlett-Packard every time.

So when is Japan going to get off its butt and lead the US by cutting dues? Reform or (preferably) replacement isn't going to occur until Japan grabs the other end of the dues tourniquet and starts pulling hard.

Hurry up or we're going to start talking about Japan being the perfect home for the UN in the 21st century.

I read that the UN building is a real ratty place. The Times a few years ago did a piece on it. So why the diffential of almost a billion between what Annan wants and "The Donald" could build? Of course, it is fraud, it is all exaggerated nonsense and do not expect any accounting of the cost on the construction costs. Transparency on UN costs would a farce. Not even Tony Soprano would be that greedy.

On the 0.7% poverty payment, this is all part of the Dr. Jefffrey Sachs/Bono program. Leave that for the next Democratic Administration because it is non-starter with the president and his people.

Japan's trying to get a seat at the table and talking about cutting off the table's legs, at the moment, might not be the wisest of moves. Hopefully they'll get in and the present administration or one like it will continue to rule and then something can be done. Of course, like in the U.S., if the (loyal?) opposition takes over, let the lovefest begin.

If they veto, Japan says it will stop paying its dues. The money is the only card they hold, which is why it is a good idea not to be talking about cuts right now. Ironically, since it has served the tyrants of the world so well, including those in China, by this way of thinking China could in fact become an underlying reason for the UN's undoing. For China will do its best not to allow Japan in, and if Japan doesn't get in they could very well take a walk. Or something close to that. That's 1/5 of the budget.

You guys might be looking for a seat at a table where the wrong game is being played.

Never fail to consider upending the table and declaring that it's time to play a new game like the International League Where Despots Are Not Allowed To Even Enter Let Alone Step To the Podium.

I'll sign up for the cheerleading squad for that proposal. AFAIC China can sit down and shut up until it's carrying a proportionate load.

The last time the Japanese took that path a whole lotta trouble ensued. Still a little gun shy, pardon the metaphor, and rightfully so. Get in and along with the U.S. make a stand. Or if kept out by China make a stand at America's side. At America's behest. But Japan, and rightfully so, is still shy about diplomacy on that kind of a scale. Which is too bad. A few different post-war choices during the Occupation and immediately thereafter and the North Korea and China problem wouldn't exist in my opinion. Those choices, if made, would have meant an ally in Japan and an America not willing "to lose" China, to lose Korea (or a draw if you will), and so on. But I'm stepping into deep waters here and as this is my last post, noticing that the sun has risen, I'll ask everyone to ignore me and stay on topic. Off to futon-land.

ooops! Yeah, I do recall reading about that one now that you mention it. My bad. No table tossing yet for Japan... baby steps, baby steps...

The US and Japan should both give 50% of their prior year's "dues" to the UN; and put the other 50% into a new, NATO-like Human Rights Enforcement Group.

And ask Australia, the UK, India, and all other "democracies" to join the new HReg. To coordinate responses among democracies.

[Full democracies require free press, free religion, and two democratically elected top leaders peacefully transfering power to newly elected leaders -- at least 3 different elected individuals]

I certainly hold no brief for the UN, but Claudia Rosett is pulling a fast one over the 0.7% ODA goal. The 0.7% of GDP/GNP/GNI/GDI goal from industrialized nations for Official Development Assistance has been around since the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, and has probably appeared in nearly every UN development document and Secretary Generals' reports since then. The US has never achieved that level of ODA support and probably won't anytime soon. Only some of the Scandinavian countries and Luxembourg routinely hit or exceed the 0.7% goal. (See this, apparently social justice inclined, source.)

I find it hard to believe that she isn't aware of the above; so the shock with "distinct horror, cold sweats, and mighty fears" induced by that "small cipher" seems a good impression of Captain Renault.

Lynxx, slightly o/t, but you're not hinting that the USA isn't making a fair contribution to the welfare of the world, are you? Start with the DoD budget, and the piracy-free seas, and expanding global trade enabled by the US military. And, try quantifying those .7% numbers, and then using a push-number to book the benefits those countries get for free from USA. Sorry, but I'm so sick of compartmentalized-to-absurdity arguments.

No, Buddy. I don't think there ever should have been a one-size-fits-all GNI-based percentage target for ODA contributions. But that doesn't obviate the fact that it is an old target, and Rosett's treating it as something new and nefarious calls into question her expertise or motivation.

June 29, 2005: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post