Stingy, eh?
At the risk of sounding very "I know you are, but what am I?" (in other words, juvenile), I find it outrageous (spoken with appropriate Tom Daschle-esque pique and righteous indignation) that some klepto-crat from the United Nations (of what, precisely?) would accuse us (that is U.S. citizens) of being stingy in our relief efforts.
Well, actually, he accused us (as in, all rich nations) of being stingy in our developmental aid to poor countries, and did not exactly single us (as in, the U.S.) out - but does anyone seriously doubt these are the sentiments of the average desk-jockey in the U.N. complex at Turtle Bay?
The awesome response of Americans to this awesome (in the true sense of the word) tragedy has already been well catalogued elsewhere - and in any case is growing faster than I could possibly keep up with here. It suffices to say that Americans donating through amazon.com have generated more relief aid than the entire nation on France. 'nuf said.
However, there are two points I wish to forward in this regard:
1) It is typical of the U.N. and they don't consider anything "legitimate" (military action, disaster relief, etc.) unless the authority (and therefore the money and power) flows from member-state governments through them. As an aside, how typical and perfectly fitting that the U.N. would unconsciously (or even knowingly) discount the nearly 1/4-billion dollar private relieve effort currently underway.
2) Perhaps our alleged "stinginess" with development aid is an acknowledgement on our part that a) such aid doesn't work very well at "developing" poor countries and, b) the U.N. has a God-awful record of disposing of such aid ("Oil-for-food", Sudan, Somalia or Rwanda, anyone?).
In fact, doesn't this affair truly point out the impotence and incompetence of the United Nations as a whole. I mean, while private organizations and a 4-nation coalition (U.S., Australia, India and Japan) are providing immediate relief to the victims of the horrible disaster in Southeast Asia, the best Kofi Annan and the U.N. can do is organize a "donor's conference" for aid to take place fully a week from now (January 11th), in Geneva of all places (And isn't it also so fitting and typical of the U.N. that such a conference will be held not in the region where the disaster they hope to relieve actually is, but in some euro-trash filled resort town where the rich, powerful and liberal can gaze from afar and poo-poo the efforts of those who are actually doing something to help the poor souls in need.).
To the extent that the United Nations serves some minor purpose in advancing our agenda abroad at little cost to the taxpayers of the United States, there is probably little harm in sticking around with this ill-tempered, churlish brood of jet-setting busy-bodies and do-gooders. The minute they start to become a hindrance to us again (vis-a-vie, the next Iraq), it may be time for us to pull the plug on the U.N. once and for all.
(revised - minor correction 20050106 1114)
Well, actually, he accused us (as in, all rich nations) of being stingy in our developmental aid to poor countries, and did not exactly single us (as in, the U.S.) out - but does anyone seriously doubt these are the sentiments of the average desk-jockey in the U.N. complex at Turtle Bay?
The awesome response of Americans to this awesome (in the true sense of the word) tragedy has already been well catalogued elsewhere - and in any case is growing faster than I could possibly keep up with here. It suffices to say that Americans donating through amazon.com have generated more relief aid than the entire nation on France. 'nuf said.
However, there are two points I wish to forward in this regard:
1) It is typical of the U.N. and they don't consider anything "legitimate" (military action, disaster relief, etc.) unless the authority (and therefore the money and power) flows from member-state governments through them. As an aside, how typical and perfectly fitting that the U.N. would unconsciously (or even knowingly) discount the nearly 1/4-billion dollar private relieve effort currently underway.
2) Perhaps our alleged "stinginess" with development aid is an acknowledgement on our part that a) such aid doesn't work very well at "developing" poor countries and, b) the U.N. has a God-awful record of disposing of such aid ("Oil-for-food", Sudan, Somalia or Rwanda, anyone?).
In fact, doesn't this affair truly point out the impotence and incompetence of the United Nations as a whole. I mean, while private organizations and a 4-nation coalition (U.S., Australia, India and Japan) are providing immediate relief to the victims of the horrible disaster in Southeast Asia, the best Kofi Annan and the U.N. can do is organize a "donor's conference" for aid to take place fully a week from now (January 11th), in Geneva of all places (And isn't it also so fitting and typical of the U.N. that such a conference will be held not in the region where the disaster they hope to relieve actually is, but in some euro-trash filled resort town where the rich, powerful and liberal can gaze from afar and poo-poo the efforts of those who are actually doing something to help the poor souls in need.).
To the extent that the United Nations serves some minor purpose in advancing our agenda abroad at little cost to the taxpayers of the United States, there is probably little harm in sticking around with this ill-tempered, churlish brood of jet-setting busy-bodies and do-gooders. The minute they start to become a hindrance to us again (vis-a-vie, the next Iraq), it may be time for us to pull the plug on the U.N. once and for all.
(revised - minor correction 20050106 1114)
posted by Doc J | 1:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home