That's not fair, Joe. The party hasn't. Only certain members of it, who are, in my opinion, doomed to fail in their election attempts this fall.

Wait until the Democratic National Convention. If there's a plank on it pledging no more unilateralism, I'll join in with you in excoriating them.

Until the Dems realize that 40+ nations in support of the US isn't unilateralism, they deserved to be belittled.

Meryl, I used my language carefully. While some Democrats may not hold this view, it was the near-unanimous consensus among the current group of candidates, and a central theme in their criticism of George Bush. Joe Lieberman was the sole dissenting voice - and you saw how he finished.

The Democratic Party has clearly made up its mind on this issue. It may change its mind at a later date, and I do wish its dissenters luck in fostering that change. Right now, however, the characterization is accurate.

Given the U.N.'s long record of failure, evasion, corruption, and even complicity in genocide, this is a position that deserves to be hit. Hard.

Yes, the more we tell outrageous lies to the world, and the more our former allies turn away in sorrow (replaced by those 40 magnificent new allies like Uzbekistan), the stronger we are. That's probably the Bush/Cheney doctrine in a nutshell.

As Howard Dean put it, Bush said he would have a "humble" foreign policy, but he meant "humiliating".

Of course it's never occurred to Andrew that maybe some of our "allies" should be "former allies."

Cold War is over, if they can't see what's in front of their faces at this point in time, that's their problem, not mine.

Following Andrew's example, I would like to say "I like cheese"

Andrew, and you response to corruption in the UN is ???

Yikes man, I guess, when you don't like unacceptable things it's back to "BUSH LIED, BUSH LIED ...."

good response, perfectably predictable

Never mind the fact that the source mentioned, a Mr. Theilmann, was from the State Department, which historically has been opposed to almost anything that the DoD has done. Counting on him being an honest and unbiased source is laughable. I would no sooner trust a member of the DoD to ask about serious diplomatic affairs.

A couple of points. First, if I understand correctly, Joe, these are allegations. The origin and authenticity of the document is still in question.

Second, the claim that the UN wasn't supervising the program seems like feigned outrage to me. The UN's

Third, and most importantly, if you assume that there was some level corruption taking place ( not an unreasonable assumption considering the stakes involved ) can you damn the organization based on the actions of individuals?

Corruption, or at the very least, rule bending, is systemic. It exists in all governments and all organizations. While it must be rooted out when it is found it cannot be used to delegitimize the organization.

If this was common practice then the actions of Mulroney and Chretien would have delegitimized the Canadian Gov and the extraordinary scandals in the US like Iran/Contra would have been the end of the US Government.

First of all, describing this level of corruption as an "allegation" is simply insulting. The UN itself cannot account for these monies, nor does it seem to have much interest in doing so. Further, their denials do not in fact extend to denying the corrupt practices. So spare me.

As for using such events to delegitimize an organization, please inform me how Mulroney's Progressive Conservative Party is doing these days. Oh, you mean it collapsed shortly after Mulroney departed and lost its status as a national political party? Hmmm.

Scandals on this scale, with no serious follow-up - yes, they do do delegitimize the organization. And should. As it happens, this joins a long list of U.N. scandals and screwups. Some of us are paying attention.

Hi.

"A real fine organization the U.S. Democratic Party has decided to beg permission from in order to protect America. Yessirreee."

I agree the U.N. is hopelessly crooked and deserves nothing, least of all respect. (However I already thought that after the betrayals of Goradze and Srebrenica.)

However I don't agree that the U.S. Democratic Party has decided in real earnest to subordinate America to the U.N.. I think that's just a fantasy, or something emotional people are saying because they're angry and frightened that they're in a war and their potential leader doesn't seem to "get it."

I think they (the leading Democrats) are just playing cheap politics on the UN and "multilateralism." This lack of seriousness about what's at stake is why I think they'd be a calamity for the global war on terrorism if they controlled the White House. It has nothing to do with the UN.

I think that all that President John F. Kerry would do for the United Nations would be to tell them the check is in the mail.

The Americans are notorious deadbeats on their UN assessments, because they correctly perceive that the UN is a deadbeat on the performance of its duties. It's like a reversal of the old Communist joke, in this case it would be: they pretend to work, so we pretend to pay them. The Americans only got paid up to date because George W. Bush was making a heroic effort to get the UN and countries theoretically allied with the US (like France) to support America in enforcing binding UN resolutions regarding Iraq.

We all know how that worked out. Now there is less reason than ever to think that the UN really works, and really deserves to be paid.

The American legislature holds the purse strings, as President Gerald F. Ford found out when money for Vietnam was stopped. Quite likely President John F. Kerry would have fun berating those barbaric Republicans in the Congress and Senate for obstructing funds for the UN, and they would enjoy saving the money by doing something a Democratic president claimed to oppose, and the UN would have a funding shortage which it would take as yet another excuse for corruption and inactivity, and the world would go round as usual.

Look, anyone knows that the UN won't do anything for you, the French wish you ill, and so on. The only reason any American President with half a brain will go to them is an excuse for inaction. You invite them to exercise a veto on anything you're not serious about but don't want to be seen to kill yourself. (Like William J. Clinton not wanting either Kyoto or to take responsibility for killing Kyoto.)

The UN and the French can be just as obstructive if you give them nothing but empty promises and empty smiles. Maybe more so: hungry and angry is good in this context.

So whoever wins the next American presidential election, the UN won't.

Just my 2c.

Andrew J. Lazarus:
You said: "our former allies turn away in sorrow".
I'm afraid you're mistaken there. France did not turn away in sorrow, nor in a fit of temper over harsh words from Secretary Rumsfeld.

It did so primarily in pursuit of long-term foreign policy goals of their own, decided upon unsentimentally by the professionals of the Quai d'Orsay (which are not the ones people often ascribe to them, either.)

In pursuit of these ends France prepared to use the UNSC as ameans of preventing action at all costs, and to break assurances given by M. de Villepin to Secretaries Powell and Straw.

In the process they, and their supporters and apologists, made a mockery of the UNSC, the UN in general, it's resolutions, and the good faith to be expected of allies.

This was a particularly painful episode for me, as a long-time supporter and advocate of the UN, and for many Britons like me.
The Labour Party constitution explicitly gives as a permanent objective of the Party "to support the United Nations Organisation and its various agencies".

The wreckage made of this by France is an act I for one will not forgive in a hurry. But if the choice must be between nominal adherence to the UN and "multilateralism" (i.e. having policies approved by Paris - and Beijing, Moscow, and Berlin) reproducing the stasis of the League of Nations, and "coalitions of the willing", then coalitions it is.

Joe-

First, I know you know what an allegation is so I am confused why the arrival of a piece of paper from the bowels of corruption from which you can infer events took place is more than an allegation? How does the size of an allegation transform it into a fact?

Second, yes, Mulroney got punished and the institution remained. That was the point.

Now, don't get me wrong, the UN has a number of structural problems. The UNSC has more problems than menay other parts of th UN.

Perhaps instead of getting all frothy about the UN's failings the critics should urge their governments to take up Kofi Annans challenge and re-make the UN so that it can act when needed and can refrain when it is unjustified.

Perhaps instead of getting all frothy about the UN's failings the critics should urge their governments to take up Kofi Annans challenge and re-make the UN so that it can act when needed and can refrain when it is unjustified

Kevin, the problem is not that the UN needs remaking. That's like saying the solution to racism is to "remake" the KKK. How can we fight hatred if we won't "engage" with bigots?

The UN is fundamentally, from the ground up, incapable of "acting when needed." It is specifically designed to prevent action.

In the US, we (usually) prevent felons from voting. The reason is simple: if you can't obey the law, you have no right to participate in making it. Yet the UN gives the human-rights chairmaship to Libya, the disarmarment chairmanship to Iraq, and the SC chair to Syria, etc. Then they hector the US for not signing treaties on the rights of women--which Saudi Arabia has signed but, ahem, not exactly implemented.

The whole thing is built on the laughable premise that all governments are equally committed to the "common goals" of the UN. Come to think of it, the notion that we have "common goals" with the thugs and kleptocrats of the world is laughable.

Don't even get me started on their irritating but thankfully ineffectual domestic meddling like obesity and gun control.

I can see no way of reforming an organization dedicated to "peace" and "human rights" which treats Robert Mugabe as a serious member. I can only imagine scrapping it and starting over.

But I'd love to hear your suggestions for reform.

Rob-

Whether we re-make it or scrap it and start again we both agree that there is a need for a strong international organization.

The other point of agreement is that the UN was designed to prevent action. Tt was established to stop unilateral action: to prevent wars. You can understand my bemusement when people criticized the UN for 'not acting' in Iraq. You know, trying to avoid a war by letting the inspectors finish their work.

The 'searching under the streetlights' is irksome though. My favorite is 'spanking' as a human rights violation in the west. Yikes.

I'm sure you know the difference but I'll spell it out: the UN doesn't treat Mugabe as a serious member. It treats Zimbabwe as a member nation. Zimbabwe is a good example of the soverignty/intervention problem.

To answer your question, to make any meaningful reform at the UN there needs to be a greater benefit to membership.

As it is structured now, it is too easily influenced by the political agenda of the individual member nations. It has been a political tool in the larger picture of international struggles. If you look at the voting record of the UNSC this becomes obvious.

The issues in re-structuring the UN are similar to those faced by Jefferson et. al. Balancing the need for a union against the sovereignty of the individual member states while protecting the rights of the individual and ensuring against the tyranny of the majority.

Does it scale up? I think the principles do but there needs to be a more compelling benefit to membership. This would counter-act states pursuing their individual interests.

KevinG,

Question: What is the philosophical basis for state sovereignty?

Sam, you've lost me.

Ok, I'll lay it out. According to U.S. doctrine and philosophy, the basis for state sovereignty is the consent of the governed. This is the principle underlying all democratic forms of government.

What about states that do not follow this principle? Broadly speaking, they are totalitarian in nature, as ultimate power is held by those in command, rather than the people at large. According to democratic principles, totalitarian states lack legitimate sovereignty.

This is why your Mugabe/Zimbabwe response is not on point. Since Mugabe is a totalitarian dictator, his ambitions and desires are reflected in his U.N. participation, not those of the people of Zimbabwe. The United Nations thoroughly undermines any institutional commitment to democracy by recognizing the Mugabes of the world as legitimate proxies of the populations under their rule.

Since the United Nations makes no distinctions between democratic nations, whose leaders are chosen in free elections, and totalitarian nations, whose leaders have seized power in illegitimate fashion, it is fatally flawed in concept as a body with any legitimate power. As an international debating society? Sure. As a legitimate representative of the international order? Absolutely not. We cannot allow the U.N. independent power, because it is hopelessly compromised by its very structure.

Sam, thanks. I will admit that I have more than a little sympathy for the argument that the notion of sovereignty needs to be re-examined.

However, it seems to me there are two main problems with your argument.

First, and most obviously, unles you are speaking hypothetically, there is no doctrine in the US - or anywhere else that I know of - that says a nation is not sovereign if it is not a democracy. So we're off to a bad start. If this were true then Saudi Arabia, China [insert usual suspects] would not be sovereign nations which clearly is not the case since we all treat each other as soverign nations.

Second, you seem to be saying that the UN cannot be a "legitimate representative of the international order" unless it ignores the reality of the international order and only includes democracies.

KevinG,

Your first point is intimately tied into the concept of sovereignty, to which there is a practical definition and a philosophical definition. Practically, sovereignty can be defined as the ability to wield power uncontested. However, there is the issue of democratic legitimacy--and while we don't make a whole lot of noise about, e.g. China having an illegitimate government, the reasons are practical, not philosophical.

I don't think anyone could argue that the world of international diplomacy is an area where Platonic ideals are rigidly followed, but it is useful to keep first principles in mind. Free and democratic nations, if they believe in the universality of human rights, should have compelling reasons to accept the bondage of others. For instance, the consequences of imposing regime change on China would be staggeringly huge, and therefore amount to a compelling reason not to do so. Recognizing that the government of China is not democratically legitimate does not force the conclusion that we should instantly change the status quo without other considerations.

As for your second point, I would say that the U.N. is often assumed to have a certain amount of influence, authority, and legitimacy because it represents all the nations of the world. This is a false assumption. Totalitarian states do not represent the will of the people within those states, and since totalitarian states make up a substantial proportion of U.N. membership, their populations go unrepresented.

An international association that accepted only democracies within its ranks (and I'd support the creation of such an institution) would likewise not represent all the peoples of the world (unless every nation was a democracy, of course). However, it would represent all of the free people of the world, and as a group would hopefully have the motivation to promote its own expansion by supporting the cause of freedom in the parts of the world not yet free.

Finally, I'd say there is no representative of the international order, because there is no international order to represent. The law of nations is still the law of the jungle.

Sam-

Thanks for a thoughtful repsonse.

Clearly, as you say, principles and pragmatics are both at play in these issues.

I think we would both like to see the same end arise. We differ on the methods to use.

The law of the jungle is self-perpetuating and at some point, as globalization and population increase while available resources decrease, we need to develop a better form of managing our affairs.

KevinG,

Do you think that a democracies-only replacement for the U.N. would be a good intermediate goal? Would the U.N. as currently structured be better? Is there a third option that you would prefer to either of the above two?

The ultimate goal (long, long term) would be the extension of human rights, including democracy, to every part of the world. I believe that we would both see that as an excellent state of affairs.

Ryan over at Tasty Manatees is long on abuse and short on evidence and logic.

• The "verification" of the story is weak: apparently just one MEMRI-based article. For the time being, in the words of one informed commentator, "the generic facts about Iraqi influence-purchasing are clearly true; but the details remain murky" (Abu Ardvark, 2004-01-29).

• Ryan makes much of the UN's merely reporting Sevan's denial without specifically defending him. It's not significant that they decline to prove a general negative; instead they have (rightly) sought particulars of the charges. This Ryan dismisses absurdly as the "prove it" defence. [He may be right in claiming that they should have sought particulars more promptly.]

• Ryan makes an analogy with a fraud involving a 50 per cent discount from market price. But in this case the kickbacks were deliberately much less obvious, of the order of 2 per cent not 50 per cent of the market price.

• Ryan references Sevan's claim that he did not have the power to stop the kickbacks, then dismisses it without logical argument. He doesn't make any reference to the actual powers and duties of the Director of the Oil-for-Food Program (Sevan's position); instead he makes some analogical remarks about the powers and duties of auditors, although Sevan was not in the position of auditor either of Iraq or of its customers. He at first ignores the notoriously close oversight of the program by the 661 committee, and when a commenter does bring it up his replies are illogical and abusive (by way of illustration, he accuses the commenter of lying for saying he works for the OfF program, simply because he's not posting from a UN address).

• Katzman complains that "the UN itself cannot account for these monies"; that's not significant, since (by all accounts) it never handled them.

There may eventually turn out to be something to this story, but there's nothing in Ryan's article to show that.

Abu, maybe I'm still jet-lagged but I'm having some trouble here...

'For the time being, in the words of one informed commentator, "the generic facts about Iraqi influence-purchasing are clearly true; but the details remain murky"'

...on the other hand...

'There may eventually turn out to be something to this story...'

Let's go to the core, agreed-to facts; Iraq maniplated the humanitarian (let's skip how the funds were used within Iraq as irrelevant to this) oil sales, that were held under UN supervision, and offered 'commissions' to certain influential people (we're not sure who got how much and may never be) in the West, with the obvious intent of buying favorible treatment for Iraqi interests.

OK, this isn't good. But I'm stuck on the 'may eventually turn out to be something to the story' part; how did you get from one to the other?

And the UN, who is supposed to be monitoring all this - to make sure that the funds are used for the benefit of the Iraqi people - instead takes a (large) unaudited administrative fee, and managed not to notice the skimming going on.

For my case, you'll note that this was pretty well covered (among other things not yet proven) in Ken Pollack's book, and his argument that sanctions were unsustainable for these reasons formed one of his core arguments for invasion.

A.L.

To quote Glenn: Indeed.

And when the sanctions were eventually removed, how much do you think Pakistan could have sold some nuclear equipment for? And all the other countries and corporations that were invovled in Khan's illegal nuclear racket? Maybe not 5 years for Iraq to get the bomb, perhaps not even 10(if one bases off of the Iraqi WMD program right before the war). But it was only a matter of time.

Armed Liberal:

Clearly true are (1) Iraq was taking kickbacks on oil sold under Oil-for-Food, and (2) it routed some small portion of those kickbacks as commissions to foreign beneficiaries. Unproven are (3) whether the al Mada list is genuine, (4) in particular, whether Sevon received improper payments, (5) whether his office was somehow derelict in its administration of the program.

The existence of kickbacks became an open secret during the course of the program; the US' remedy was the retroactive pricing scheme; if the US was ever unhappy with Sevon's administration of the program it's kept very quiet about it.

The administration fees the UN took were in accordance with the various SC resolutions (the aim being to let the burden of the administrative costs fall upon Iraq); it's undisputed AFAIK that all moneys passing through the UN office were audited; the kickbacks were side-transactions conducted contrary to the SC resolutions outside the view of the UN.

Abu:

Actually, I've read several sources that suggest that the UN admin fees were not, in fact, audited and that those accounts are a mare's nest; as my ex-sister in law works for one of the UN directorates in Geneva (accounting and IT), I have some belief based on her discussins with me that most of the accounting in the UN is in a similar state, and that the recent EU scandals in fact characterize much UN spending - which would be consistent with the first point.

A.L.

Armed Liberal:

I've read several sources that suggest that the UN admin fees were not, in fact, audited and that those accounts are a mare's nest . . .

A plausible story; I've had a quick look-around for it without success; a citation would be appreciated.

Even if true, it would in no way justify the Tasty Manatees story, which alleged corrupt collusion with Iraq on illicit side transactions not on the Security - Council - mandated administrative margins.

Hello, "Denis/Frank". Have you popped out your "I am a U.N. Oil-for-Food employee and I can vouch that the program was legit" line, yet?

You're darn right I was abusive towards you, "Frank"! You displayed some pretty low-brow dishonesty, and I don't take kindly to mindless spin.

Thought these fine folks would be more receptive? Okey-dokey, then:

>* "The 'verification' of the story is weak"

I see.

Reference 1

Reference 2

Reference 3

Reference 4

Reference 5

Those are just the links from the actual piece at Tasty Manatees. There are plenty of other stories on it, but like I concluded in the piece, the U.N. is stonewalling the investigation and, as a result, any definitive "proof" of guilt will be long in coming. If you'd like some more, I'll be happy to give the other links from non-U.S. sources. You can probably understand why I would find it ironic that you would raise the issue of the reluctance of the Western media to admit that the people they've been urging us to defer to were actually on a fascist mass-murderer's mayroll.

>"* Ryan makes much of the UN's merely reporting Sevan's denial without specifically defending him."

Good point, it's impossible to prove a negative. However, I don't expect the U.N. to try to prove Benon Sevan's innocence, and I thought my piece made that pretty clear. The problem I have is that the U.N. has given Sevan absolutely no backup. They say, "Sevan says he didn't do it, and that's all we have to say about that".

I know that if I were accused of a serious crime, I would expect that my superiors and colleagues would have enough faith in my integrity to come forward and vouch for me. Apparently, Sevan can't say the same.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

>"* Ryan makes an analogy with a fraud involving a 50 per cent discount from market price."

Seriously, learn to read. That's not a joke, you have a reading comprehension problem.

The relevant sentence you are citing to reads, "At an average profit of up to 50 cents per barrel," not "50 per cent". To back up that factual allegation, I provided a link to an ABC News story alleging that the average profit was 50 cents per barrel.

>"* Ryan references Sevan's claim that he did not have the power to stop the kickbacks, then dismisses it without logical argument. He doesn't make any reference to the actual powers and duties of the Director of the Oil-for-Food Program (Sevan's position); instead he makes some analogical remarks about the powers and duties of auditors, although Sevan was not in the position of auditor either of Iraq or of its customers. He at first ignores the notoriously close oversight."

"Interestingly, Sevan himself was aware that his program had problems. When allegations about Saddam’s bribery came out, Sevan said 'Everybody knew it, and those who were in a position to do something about it, were not doing anything.' When a reporter asked him if he himself was guilty of doing nothing, Sevan responded with, 'I have no power.' Yet, the U.N. issues denials, and tries to cover it up."

This paragraph is included in the discussion on the duty a CEO owes to ensure that his company's transactions are legit, his duty of care. It has NOTHING to do with auditors. The insufficiency of the U.N.'s audits to detect purposeful fraud committed by crooked managers isn't even brought up for another four or five paragraphs and two more blockquotes from the U.N.'s denial! Perhaps the piece was too long for you and you became confused?

I'm sensing a trend in your selective mistakes, here, "Frank".

>"There may eventually turn out to be something to this story, but there's nothing in Ryan's article to show that."

Or, judging from your inability to honestly appraise it, the piece I posted does a fairly good job at highlighting why the U.N.'s (and it's flunky's) denials mean nada. Either is possible. I would urge the reader to make up his own mind, rather than take your word for it, "Frank".

Dear Editor,

I wanted you to know that I provided all
of the information as well as attached documents to a UN investigator in the
oil for food scandal today. We spoke for
one hour and he will be calling me again tomorrow!

Mike

PS: My website has much more!

http://www.geocities.com/profits_of_genocide/

SEE FILES IN -EVIDENCE FROM COURT PROCEEDINGS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------