Bolton is hopping mad, period. I read the speech, and it was actually the sort of plain speaking that we should hear more. I would be more critical of the UNs many failings, but overall I didn't see the speech as being that bad.

"but in characterizing Middle America as moronic xenophobes, he's creating the very attitude he seeks to change."
He didn't say that, he said the RIGHT WING media has corrupted peoples ideas of the UN, he is placing the blame on the shoulders of rushie and fox and they are to blame

It's time to jettison the entire U.N. project. It does more harm than it does good. Good bye, good riddance.

The U.N. is soon to move out of its building in NYC for an overhaul. We should tell them to overhaul a building in Geneva and move there. Permanently.

boy, "the u.s." sure does have a chip on its shoulder. sometimes you're a joy to read, dr. drezner. sometimes i'm stunned by the apparent lack of serious critical thinking, exhibited by this post. madmatt has it right.

Fisked Mr Malloch Brown at my blog - http://www.di2.nu/200606/07d.htm

Speaking of M&W , they have responded to critics. Plus a thoughtful essay in the NYRB has moved discussion forward.

"Is Mark Malloch Brown really a diplomat?"

Not very diplomatic is he? Take a "mea culpa" on structural UN problems and not explain what is wrong. Instead he airs dirty laundry, insults Bolton by comparison to others, and the usual appeal to B-level Democratic party wonks, invoke "Fox News" and "Middle America". I wish Pat Moynihan were alive today for his response!

Interesting insights from the globalist perspective. He believes the UN is "the world." Can you imagine the stares he would get if he would claim France or Russia or China doesn't use the UN as a diplomatic tool? Stealth? He himself should learn some. I think this diplomatic tool line is an appeal to Americans who would rather be ruled by the UN and view it as something pure and above "Middle America", something where France, Russia, et al. subvert their national interests to the common global good.

Also, he may be personally peeved with Bolton. Bolton isn't "one of the guys", certainly doesn't dress or groom himself the part.

hink this diplomatic tool line is an appeal to Americans who would rather be ruled by the UN and view it as something pure and above "Middle America", something where France, Russia, et al. subvert their national interests to the common global good.

Yes, its meant to appeal to such people. Or maybe, just maybe its meant to appeal to people, who while they have no particular love for UN bureaucracies, do indeed believe that it is not likely to send black helicopters over their heads. I know its totally irrational, but there are indeed people who do feel that way and aren't scared of the black helicopters.

Also, he may be personally peeved with Bolton. Bolton isn't "one of the guys", certainly doesn't dress or groom himself the part.

That and the almost insignificant fact that Bolton has pretty much called for the UN to become a US instrument.

Of course, whatever Brown's faults (and I'm sure they're legion), at least he was not involved in bullying US intelligence officers into changing their analysis to support his view or put assertions based on faked documents into speeches.

SOmeone will doubtless have to explain to me why, when Bolton goes off on a rant, he's lauded for being plain-speaking, but when Brown does so, he's called undiplomatic.

Professor Drezner --- something to consider for a future article -- what if there were no UN ? Well, you might have to invent it or something like it.

There are UN organs that are just sinecures for bureaucrats. But there are also others that are useful. If there were no UN, would you still keep the IMF, the IAEA, the World Bank, UNICEF, the peace keeping organizations, WTO etc ? How would you do something like institute international sanctions ? What about peace keeping ? Would we have different groups ? How about handling regional councils ?

All of these could be handled without the UN, but unless the US is planning to become totally isolationist, you would need new bodies for that. Would the expense of those bodies be any less ? If most were based outside the US, would it mean that their funding wouldn't come back to the US (as does happen for a lot of UN spending) ? I don't know the answer to that, but these are all topics that should be considered when the mindless cry to throw the UN out of New York is made.

Mark Malloch Brown's arguments may have validity, but they are both inappropriate and impolitic. Inappropriate because it is not Mr Brown's job as a representative of the UN to critique US policy and prevailing attitudes towards the UN. Impolitic because his personage subverts the very message he is seeking to convey - a dapper UN diplomat with a eurocrat accent is not going to win the heartland on this one.

I think MMB's speech is just a bit of cheap grandstanding aimed primarily at European consumption. He is trying to play the part of the sophisticated worldly, but powerless ally, helping the powerful, but misguided hegemon. Again, he raises some valid points, but the tone is pretty patronizing.

Bolton - hardly a favorite of mine - is right to jump all over MMB for this.

The World Bank and the IMF were created at Bretton Woods and pre-date the UN. The WTO is an outgrowth of the GATT, also created at Bretton Woods. The IAEA does not seem to have done a whole lot to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and must be considered a failed organization. The work of UNICEF could be done equally well by the immense number of NGOs that solicit private money for the same purposes.

It is convenient to have a place for the nations of the world can talk to each other. But it does not follow from that that this forum should have a permanent bureaucracy for any purpose nor that it should have any pretensions about compelling sovereign nations to change their behavior or interfering in their internal affairs.

The world could get along quite well without the UN as it exists today. Whatever activities it is doing well now could easily be replaced by ad hoc efforts among interested nations in the future. Rather than making the United States more isolationist, the removal of the UN as an antagonistic forum to frustrate the efforts of the US might allow the US to engage with the world more effectively. The UN has outlived its usefulness and no longer works well. Its replacement should be seriously considered.

Dan, Dan, Dan. I know it's been de rigeur for years to make nice-nice apple pie and motherhood noises about the UN and all its works, but get real, sir. How many Liberian, Ugandan, Haitian, or other 3rd world young girls have to be sex slaves to UN "peacekeepers," how many Srebrenicas have to take place, how many oil-for-food scandals have to be unearthed, how much more corruption and arrogance from unelected self-serving bureaucrats like Malloch Brown must we endure before we come to understand the indelible FACT that the UN is most likely broken beyond repair. Too many thugocracies are members and too many thieves on the payroll. We need a new start, made up of nations that are certifiable democracies.

The IAEA does not seem to have done a whole lot to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and must be considered a failed organization.

Well, the US government has had its own failures in combatting nuclear proliferation. Are you willing to call it a failed organization in this respect ?

The IAEA can only act in places where it has authority -- ie. nations that have signed the NPT and are willing to open their reactors for inspection. If an India or a Korea has a reactor that is not subject to IAEA inspection, or if they ask IAEA inspectors to leave, theres not much they can do. And the IAEA turned out to be absolutely right on the matter of IRaq circa 2003, the one unforgivable sin.

LEts take the next step. What if there were no IAEA ? What then ? Would the US create its own body for this purpose ? Would a country that is nationalistic, but not anti-US (such as India) be willing to allow US inspectors without some international fig leaf to inspect its reactors ?

But it does not follow from that that this forum should have a permanent bureaucracy for any purpose nor that it should have any pretensions about compelling sovereign nations to change their behavior or interfering in their internal affairs.

Indeed ? How do you feel about UN action on IRan then or about previous proposed action on Iraq ? What was that about if not "compelling sovereign nations to change their behavior or interfering in their internal affairs." ? Or is your belief that the UN should feel free to indulge in "compelling sovereign nations to change their behavior or interfering in their internal affairs." when it suits the interest of the US, but never otherwise ?

he world could get along quite well without the UN as it exists today. Whatever activities it is doing well now could easily be replaced by ad hoc efforts among interested nations in the future. Rather than making the United States more isolationist, the removal of the UN as an antagonistic forum to frustrate the efforts of the US might allow the US to engage with the world more effectively. The UN has outlived its usefulness and no longer works well. Its replacement should be seriously considered.

Here's the main problem with that, taking the Iraq war as the example. The problem wasn't so much the UN as the fact that the member nations of the UN,. even more so, their people opposed the war. So if you didn't have the UN, it wouldnt' mean that the US task would have become easier. It would not have gotten broader public support in Europe.

And while I'm not opposed to ad-hoc efforts per se, there is little evidence that they would be more effective. Suppose there was no UN. How do you deal with Dafur ? Through the OAU ? How is that better than the UN ? If you needeed peacekeeping, would you have another organization for that ? And what about sanctions if ever needed ?

So by all means, consider replacing the UN and getting rid of the bureaucracy. However, the notion that that would enable the US to better engage with the world should be considered unproven at best. Sovreign nations, even those that are not anti-US, tend to have their own minds, and any dealings with them will tend to be messy, UN or not.

Breton Woods incidentally may not have been the UN, but it was the closest thing to it in that time.

We need a new start, made up of nations that are certifiable democracies.

That would be nice, and maybe we could get rid of the most undemocratic part of the UN -- the Security Council and the veto power.

[Strangely though, the US anti-UN types who talk about how nice it would be to have an organization of democracies don't talk about this most undemocratic part of the UN as something to get rid of]

What is the likely reaction from the targets of Mr. Malloch Brown's speech, the Fox Newses and Rush Limbaughs?

A sharp increase in unflattering stories about the UN on Fox and in lurid denunciations of the UN and Malloch Brown personally on the talk shows -- every one of which, incidentally, will focus intently on the UN official's implied theme that their listeners are easily manipulated simpletons. That would be my guess. Invitations to Malloch Brown to go on air, which he will have to decline and for declining which he will be roundly castigated are another distinct possibility. Some additional stories in the non-right wing media about UN failings that are not as well known to their audience as Malloch Brown believes could happen, though I think that will depend mostly on what else is going on.

There are good reasons why foreign diplomats should avoid stirring up public controversies unless they are very clear what they intend to achieve by doing so. These apply doubly to UN diplomats in the United States, over which they have scant leverage. It sounds here like Malloch Brown found himself before an audience intense in its dislike of the current American administration, and let himself be carried away.

Having said that, I also find myself wondering what the American UN Ambassador is doing with a press office active enough to seek out bloggers. Engaging in public controversies in this way is not really Bolton's job either. I'd be interested to know if his nominal boss, Sec. Rice, found out about his comments on Malloch Brown's speech before the media did.

Is John Bolton a diplomat? If he had shut up and ignored the speech, no one would have said a word.

he is placing the blame on the shoulders of rushie and fox and they are to blame

I don't listen to Rush, don't watch fox, and am not a Republican. As a boy I carried around the UNICEF can collecting money on Halloween. The UN sucks because it is generally incompetent: East Timor, the Congo, the tsunami relief, the UN stand against DDT, the oil for food corruption... I could go on. That snotty bigot Brown can stick it in his ass. As Captain John Smith told the aristocratic settlers at Jamestown, "He who does not work, will not eat." That remains a sound American attitude. Let me know when the UN works, and I don't mean meeting in five star hotels to talk about work, then claiming US work as their own, and holding press conferences to trumpet their glorious accomplishments. I prefer to send my money to World Vision or some such organization that actually does things.

Suppose there was no UN. How do you deal with Dafur ?

Certainly no worse than it's been dealt with to this point? I can't recall, has the UN actually managed to let the "G" word slip out yet?

Y'know, I'm fairly sure that Rush and the Fox folks didn't make up the child rape and prostitution stories coming out of the Congo and Bosnia. They weren't the ones who stood aside and allowed the slaughter of a few thousand folks in Srebernica or the Congo or Darfur or Rwanda or Somalia. They certainly weren't up to their necks in the multi-billion dollar corruption and bribefest the UN called "Oil for Food" that let thousands of Iraqi children die of starvation and sickness.

The UN owns the responsibility for all of those things and it has shown no real sign of ensuring that the horrible abuse and/or neglect suffered by those who have trusted the UN won't be visited on others in the future.

Where would the world be today without the UN? I'm not sure. I'm fairly sure, though, that there would be 11 year-old girls today whose first sexual experience wouldn't have consisted of being forcibly deflowered by a soldier wearing a powder-blue helmet.

The UN is headed the same way as the League of Nations, for the same reasons. Already for the people at the top, who know it very well, it's just a pension plan. Just like in business, there's no practical way to recover from that.

I will never cease to be amazed by American hate for the UN. All the poor countries of the world suffer daily because the UN is misused by big countries to maximize influence and to enforce their "great power" status, the people of little countries hate the UN because it is exploited endlessly by the big countries. yet you never hear the type of demogogary against the UN from people in poor countries as you hear in the USA. If there is any country that benefits from the UN politically, it is the USA. Little countries do recieve the benefits of the agencies, but not much else. Yet because they USA provides 20% of the budget, it expects that the UN does everything demanded of it as though the UN is something independent of its member states. If anything, I think Mr. Brown was being far too kind to the USA in his comments. I find it remarkable that Americans are so ignorant and stupid when it comes to world affairs. I agree that it is not Mr. Brown's place to make such comments, but as for the content, he was far too soft.

The problem is not with the UN. The agencies do generally good work and promote neutral policies that are needed. The other bodies are simply forums for mutual discussion/cooperation. The problem in the whole deal is that the USA is a giant rogue state that wants to live outside international law and the norms of civil society. As the USA wants a totally unencumbered ability to do as it wishes in the world, it sees the UN as a threat to its power. So therefore it is important for the USA to disparage the UN in an effort keep pressure on the UN and keep it in line. If the bodies and agencies fear that the USA might withdraw its 20% share of the UN budget, they are more likely to acceed to American demands. That is what this whole thing is about. And that is why Bolton issued a press release to you dan, because he knew you can help him keep the pressure on.

The UN is headed the same way as the League of Nations, for the same reasons. Already for the people at the top, who know it very well, it's just a pension plan. Just like in business, there's no practical way to recover from that.

And this is different from whining "the MSM doesn't let Middle America see the great things we are accomplishing in Iraq, the schools we're building, etc." how exactly?
Mark Malloch Brown gave a speech that was joyfully misinterpreted by Bolton. He could have said that he was going to the bathroom and Bolton would have been mad that a UN official was going to take a "Crap on America". Forgive me for not getting too excited. It distresses me slightly that people who can actually read think that he said something about "Middle America"... but in this line of work that is also, I suppose, business as usual.

[About Darfur]
Certainly no worse than it's been dealt with to this point?

We just had the UNSC and the African Union strike a deal with the rebels and the cetral government. It may not hold, but it seems like progress.

What alternative were you proposing ? And what would you suggest the US would have done unilaterally other than magically solving the problem ?

'know, I'm fairly sure that Rush and the Fox folks didn't make up the child rape and prostitution stories coming out of the Congo and Bosnia.

No, and the UN didn't make up the stories out of Abu Gharib or Haditha either (although Rush of course claimed that Abu Gharib was just frat pranks). But I wouldn't condemn the whole US army for that.

I think there are solid grounds for condemning the UN in both places (although the Bosnia stories are less clearly established), but not for condemning all UN peacekeeping.

They weren't the ones who stood aside and allowed the slaughter of a few thousand folks in Srebernica or the Congo or Darfur or Rwanda or Somalia.

Hmm.. Refresh my memory ? What exactly did the US do actively to stop the slaughter in Darfur or the Congo ?

And in Somalia, the UN actually had a large mission, and had several casualties before and even after the US withdrawal. Of course, some people seem to think that all peacekeeping in Somalia began and ended with the US. The UN mission was only moderately successful, but that holds for the US as well.

And given that Rush was critcising everything Clinton did, and his whole legitimacy to be President at that time, maybe I can be as totally hyperbolic as you and say "Rush was resposible for the US standing aside and allowing slaughter in Rwanda and Darfur". That statement is about as sensible as yours.

The plain and simple fact is that the UN represents its members and most of them including the US really don;t want their soldiers dying in wars for peacekeeping purposes, especially in bloody African civil wars. That is why intervention is rare, whether by the US or UN. BUt condeming the UN in these circumstances without proposing some sort of intervention that would work is just hypocrisy.

They certainly weren't up to their necks in the multi-billion dollar corruption and bribefest the UN called "Oil for Food" that let thousands of Iraqi children die of starvation and sickness

What people like you conveniently forget or never learned in the first place is that Oil for Food for all its weakness and corruption, actually saved the lives of millions of Iraqis by providing food and rations to 90% plus of Iraqis over several years. There was corruption certainly, with around 15% being skimmed off by Saddam and some it was fed back to UN officials. A disgraceful episode (although 15% is actually not that high a skim by third world corruption standards), but the bulk of the money did do exactly what it was supposed to do -- save Iraqi lives.

How come Rush and Faux are not in the least concerned about the huge amounts of corruption in the US reconstruction effort or in subsequent Iraqi governments (supported by the US) ? Those sums involve American money in some cases, and the actual sums over a much smaller period are considerably larger

Where would the world be today without the UN? I'm not sure. I'm fairly sure, though, that there would be 11 year-old girls today whose first sexual experience wouldn't have consisted of being forcibly deflowered by a soldier wearing a powder-blue helmet.

"What would the world be like today without the US ? I'm not sure. I'm fairly sure though that there would be children alive in Halditha whose first and only real experience with the world wouldn't be having their brains blown out by a US marine ?"

That statement is about as sensible as yours, since you're tarnishing the good that UN peacekeepers have done with the evil that some have done on occcasion.

There are good grounds for revamping the peacekeeping operation of the UN. For one military people (like the ones involved in the Congo sexual crimes) cannot be punished by the UN, but by their own governments. Most peacekeepers in Africa tend to be from African countries, that have much less professional armies than the West, and that means scandals like this. Even Western army peacekeepers have had their own bad moments, in Bosnia.

But you know what, you forgot the one major, unbelievably evil action by the UN. UNSCOM happened to be right about Iraq. That is the one action that has lead to a lot of this anger against the UN.

The UN sucks because it is generally incompetent: East Timor, the Congo, the tsunami relief, the UN stand against DDT, the oil for food corruption...

The UN has taken no stand against DDT. WHO has supported the use of DDT for indoor spraying. WHO does recommend not overspraying, which leads to resistant mosquitoes.

As far as tsunami relief goes, the UN played a generally positive role so I'm not sure what you are referring to.

East Timor was a royal mess, but the UN mission did have some successes and only left a year ago. East TImor seems to have broken out into violence again, but that just underscores the difficulty of peacekeeping in a civil war. Most of the peacekeepers were Australian, so one wonders why you aren't criticising the Aussies ? Maybe its because the Aussies are our friends, but the "UN" makes a convenient whipping boy ?

Let me know when the UN works, and I don't mean meeting in five star hotels to talk about work, then claiming US work as their own, and holding press conferences to trumpet their glorious accomplishments.

Yes, clearly WHO or the various UN peacekeepers or other UN agencies have never done anything useful, its all US work !!

There are good grounds for criticizing the UN in several respects. Certainly the peacekeeping operations could be revamped. I'm not sure African Union Forces would be better in Africa and in Bosnia, it was French and British peacekeepers that fell back before the Serbs. Bureaucracy and multiple chains of command can cause problems, as they do in all such situations.

There is though, an enduring hypocrisy among people who criticize the UN's inaction in, say, African civil wars. The UN doesn't intervene in Darfur for the same reason that the US doesn't intervene -- no government or people care enough to risk the lives of their own soldiers.

When people want real peace keepers they don't call the UN or the French.

They call Americans.

This must be an embarassment to the UN and the rapists and child molesters they normally hire.

Me? Mad? Not at all.

Why do you ask?

Middle American, Rockford, Illinois

Bolton and the UN deserve each other, and Limbaugh and Fox really owe Brown big time for giving them something to take America's mind off of Bush's malfunctioning administration and its desperate appeals to bigotry. One thing though, is Brown so used to dealing with the many countries that do not have a free press, that he thinks it is OK for the US government to tell media critics to shut up because it might offend the UN?

My problem is that I can remember back into the 1950s-1970s when the UN was an effective organization that the US used very effectively to further US foreign policy. But in the 1980s the US deserted the UN and allowed it to deteriorate into the mess it became. Yes, it has been used by others to oppose the US and for corruption. But US opponents of multilateral approaches to foreign policy have encouraged these development and have contributed to the problem. As a consequence the job of implementing US foreign policy has been made more difficult.

I think it would be interesting if the USA left the UN and tried to start a competing organization of our own.

Who knows what the UN might accomplish without a US veto? Yes, the world would be a more interesting place without the USA on the Security Council.

Would the new organization let us have a veto? Only if we're funding it....

Yes, it would be interesting indeed. But then, we already live in interesting times.

Well, the US government has had its own failures in combatting nuclear proliferation. Are you willing to call it a failed organization in this respect ?

Absolutely! And every two, four and six years I get the chance to throw the bums out of office. If I got a similar opportunity with respect to the UN bureaucrats who are trying to give me and my country orders, I might be less critical of it, or at least have to accept that mine is the minority opinion.

That is the UN's basic problem. It has no legitimacy.

LEts take the next step. What if there were no IAEA ? What then ? Would the US create its own body for this purpose ? Would a country that is nationalistic, but not anti-US (such as India) be willing to allow US inspectors without some international fig leaf to inspect its reactors ?

A fair characterization of the nuclear deal Bush made with India with no IAEA involvement.

How do you feel about UN action on IRan then or about previous proposed action on Iraq ? What was that about if not "compelling sovereign nations to change their behavior or interfering in their internal affairs." ?

Half measures and delays that water down the impact of actions in order to gain a larger consensus from the community of nations. Ultimately they postpone the resolution of a conflict and make that ultimate resolution far more expensive in lives and treasure than it would be were it reached earlier. The UN is a fetter on US action.

Suppose there was no UN. How do you deal with Dafur ?

You're kidding, right? We can do nothing as well as the UN. Darfur is a prime example of the failure of the UN. Which is not to say that more or better would necessarily be done in the absence of the UN in this specific instance, but only that things would be no worse in its absence.

Breton Woods incidentally may not have been the UN, but it was the closest thing to it in that time.

Bretton Woods was much closer to the G8 than to anything at the UN. And the G8 has been reduced in effectiveness by its inclusive expansion from the G7.

The UN doesn't understand how a free press works.

*

Evidently, Mr. Spector needs to ratchet up his nuance meter. Mr. Bolton said worst mistake not criminal activity or criminal negligence

Brown plainly spoke the truth. The UN and diplomacy in general are inconveniences to the current US administration. They've tried to discredit and take down the UN at every turn. The very fact that Bolton is our "ambassador" is an absolute absurdity. For five years the US has arrogantly ignored international law and imposed its will on the world, foremost in Iraq where it is becoming tragically clear what happens when a country partakes in unilateral aggression.

Out here in flyover country, where the corn will soon be as high as an elephant's eye, we hicks think the United Nations is a group of people who hate the U.S. but love our money.

The fur'ners hate the U.S. so much they often don't seem to want to return to their own wretched countries.

fair characterization of the nuclear deal Bush made with India with no IAEA involvement.

Totally false. The IAEA doesn't strike deals by itself so it wasn't involved with the deal, of course, but it is the group charged with inspecting India's civilian reactors. INdia would very likely never have agreed to US inspectors in its nuclear plants.

Half measures and delays that water down the impact of actions in order to gain a larger consensus from the community of nations. Ultimately they postpone the resolution of a conflict and make that ultimate resolution far more expensive in lives and treasure than it would be were it reached earlier. The UN is a fetter on US action.

The UN is not a fetter on US action, because the US could take action in Iran if it chose right now. The fact that it does not do so is because the military option now is not suitable for several reasons (concern about Iraq, massive cost, lack of troops).

You clearly seem to favor military action immediatedly, but the US government does not at the moment. Therefore, the actions of the UN in Iran may not meet with your (all important) approval, but they seem to be in accordance with the current wishes of the US government. I suggest therefore that your quarrel in this case is with the US government policy, not with the UN.

You're kidding, right? We can do nothing as well as the UN. Darfur is a prime example of the failure of the UN. Which is not to say that more or better would necessarily be done in the absence of the UN in this specific instance, but only that things would be no worse in its absence.

The Security Council has introduced a peace plan between the government and the major rebel groups, some of which have accepted. There are some plans to have African Union or UN peacekeepers take over if the plan is accepted by all the rebel groups.

So I think things might be worse if there were no UN, although maybe the African Union would have been used as a substitute. Its unclear that the AU would be better than the UN in any case.

Bretton Woods was much closer to the G8 than to anything at the UN. And the G8 has been reduced in effectiveness by its inclusive expansion from the G7.

We had 40-50 nations gathering for Breton Woods. The US was obviously predominant but that sounds far more like the UN than the G*.

As far as the G* goes, it may be that introducing Russia was a mistake given that its economy is small. But the reason was really political, and given Russia's still powerful nuclear arsenal that would be hard to deny.

Besides, even among the G7 there may be agreement on financial issues, but on political issues as contentious as Iraq there are still likely to be vast differences. And up-and-coming economic powers China and India would probably need to be included on financial matters pretty soon.

I think its fine to get rid of the UN in general, although I think several agencies or organizations affiliated with it still serve a useful purpose. And its useful to consider alternate peacekeeping mechanisms. Perhaps local unions like the AU or NATO could do some peacekeeping.

But the notion that the problems and disagreements between the US and the rest of the world will go away magically with the disappearance of the UN is just nonsense. Genuine differences in opinion arent going to be papered away because of the absence of a forum.

One thing though, is Brown so used to dealing with the many countries that do not have a free press, that he thinks it is OK for the US government to tell media critics to shut up because it might offend the UN?

I don't think Brown said that, and being from England he should be aware of a free press. What he said was that maybe the US government should combat some of the more rabid anti-UN rhetoric with examples of cases where the UN has actually helped the US.

A good example could be the Hariri investigation by the UN. That seems to be pretty thorough and it has helped the US to put more pressure on Assad.

But of course Brown is wrong. Its hard to defend the UN because it is bureaucractic, inefficient and occasionally corrupt. UN agencies still do useful work, but most Americans (not just Dittoheads) are always a little suspicous of most global agencies, both for good and bad. The left with its own dislike of globalization represented by GATT, the IMF, the World Bank etc isn't likely to defend the UN.

The other side of the coin though is that a lot of the Limbaugh and kin attacks on the UN seem to be simply because the IAEA and UNSCOM were right about WMDs (or the lack thereof) in Iraq.

As far as East Timor goes, I think that indicates how hard peackeeping in the middle of a civil war can be. If the US has trouble in Iraq, with a huge budget, and a far stronger military, the situation with poorer, less well trained keepers in East Timor is not likely to be much better. But the unholy glee which some wingnuts take in pointing out East Timor has a ailure is reminscient of the unholy glee some moonbats take in pointing out violence in Iraq. Both seem to be forgetting the humanitarian issue or suggesting a solution in the game of one upmanship

My understanding is that the coalition holding the UN's feet to the fire on management reform represents 87% of the funding. The US provides 22% so that makes 65% of the budget of the UN being held up by other countries because the UN is so inefficient, corrupt, and unaccountable. The G77 led coalition that just thwarted reform in the General Assembly (GA) isn't just distrustful of the US but also of the countries beside the US that pony up a significant majority of the funding.

I think that Mark Malloch Brown would be shocked at the solution that Middle America would come up with if they were fully apprised of the UN situation. The League of Nations points the way to fixing the UN, cherry pick the parts that are working and fold them into a successor organization and let the rest die. This is very likely the solution that would sell very well with Middle America.

I dunno...the UN, an organization whose charter was written by communist spy and traitor Alger Hiss. The UN, explicitly designed to be a prototype world government -- but deliberately insulated against any hint of representative or democratic organization (did YOU vote for Kofi? Boutros-Boutros Gali? or even Bolton?). In fact, like the EU, it's a bureaucratic control-freak's dream, a job-for-life with "moral authority" (and they only wish they had binding legal authority) to direct the lives of the plebes like you and me but NEVER any true accountability (not for the largest financial swindle in history, nor the deliberate slaughter-by-ommission in Sebrinica, nor the booming child-rape industry among so-called "peace-keepers" -- 'cause, well, they're the U.N. fergossakes! Being a bureaucrat in the UN means never having to say you're sorry -- it's always the fault of the United States anyway (just ask Joe M and erg, above).

No, Bolton's "top 10 stories" remark didn't go nearly far enough -- and MMB can stick that in his, er, pipe and smoke it.

When people want real peace keepers they don't call the UN or the French. They call Americans.This must be an embarassment to the UN and the rapists and child molesters they normally hire.

That is blatantly false. UN peacekeepers have been used in dozens of conflicts, with varying degrees of success. Even the French have had useful peacekeeping operations in Africa (the Ivory Coast).

American troops are of course better disciplined, much better armed and much better funded than UN peacekeepers. Countries that have good histories with the US (like Liberia) or in which the US has a good neutral reputation will prefer the US. The fact though is that the US has no general inclination or desire (after Somalia) to deploy peacekeepers worldwide. And really, the US shouldn't, its a waste of American money and manpower.

Peacekeeping is more like a booby prize than some sort of validation, which you imply.

And the ground level peacekeepers are generally troops contributed by other countries, not part of the UN directly. That doesn't absolve the DPKO from crimes such as the sex scandal commited in the Congo, it does mean that the UN is no more than the sum of its parts.

Even in the Congo, despite the examples of abuse, the UN peacekeeping has on the whole had some successes. Remember that rebels were eating people there just 2 years back.

he UN, explicitly designed to be a prototype world government -- but deliberately insulated against any hint of representative or democratic organization (did YOU vote for Kofi? Boutros-Boutros Gali?

You're right, the UN is terribly undemocratic. The veto power is as undemocratic as you can get. Oh, that wasn't what you were talking about ?

Maybe we should have the vote weighted by the population of the country then. Oh, you don't like the idea of India having 3.5 times the vote that the US does too ?

not for the largest financial swindle in history, nor the deliberate slaughter-by-ommission in Sebrinica, nor the booming child-rape industry among so-called "peace-keepers" -- 'cause, well, they're the U.N. fergossakes! Being a bureaucrat in the UN means never having to say you're sorry -- it's always the fault of the United States anyway (just ask Joe M and erg, above).

I challenge you to come up with a statement were I ever said that it was always or even primarily the fault of the United States. And you are flat out false in many of your assertions below -- there have been investigations of the child rape and even of Oil For Food (which doesn't come close to BCCI or other international scandals as the greatest financial scandal in history, and as was pointed out here, the money is probably less than has been stolen in the Iraq reconstruction effort). And disgraceful as the sex scandals were, its far from being the "booming industry" you claim.

I certainly believe in holding the UN responsible for its mistakes, missteps, and corruption. In terms of peacekeeping though, the real problem has often been the fact that the UNSC and others aren't interested in committing enough resources. And we knew from iraq how touch peacekeeping can be.

UN-philiacs fall into three camps: the starry-eyed idealists, the anti-American, and the multilateralists. Not too many of the first type in this crowd, but we have Joe m. and erg to fill out the latter two. All three of these types miss a simple fact--whatever utility or legitimacy the UN has comes from its association with the US (I'm not talking here about the "independent" agencies like the WTO and the WHO, but the political activities of the UN).

Sure, the US makes use of the UN where convenient--we're already paying huge amounts of money for the damn thing, opponents of our interests have puffed it up some, and it's an easy way to stall or take the heat off when we don't want to do something. That doesn't mean we couldn't get along as well without it or that the Secretariat and its bureaucracy have any independent value to us or anyone else.

BTW, erg's obsession with UNSCOM and Iraq as the source of anti-UN sentiment is off the mark. Most skeptics felt this way going back to the 1970s, if they're old enough--the Third World/Communist takeover of the institution pretty much soured all thoughtful Americans.

UN-philiacs fall into three camps: the starry-eyed idealists, the anti-American, and the multilateralists. Not too many of the first type in this crowd, but we have Joe m. and erg to fill out the latter two. All three of these types miss a simple fact--whatever utility or legitimacy the UN has comes from its association with the US (I'm not talking here about the "independent" agencies like the WTO and the WHO, but the political activities of the UN).

Yes, of course. Anyone who believes that there is some useful purpose served by some wings of the UN must be anti-American. And of course, thats why a UNphiliac like me says that it would be fine to get rid of the UN in general. Joe M is anti-American, but I don't consider myself so.

Also very convenient to take out other UN agencies when commenting on the use or lack thereof of the UN. [ I also think the peacekeeping is useful in genera].

And in your mind, the legitimacy of the UN may come purely from its association with the US, but that is not the case worldwide. The UN gives an international imprint to actions, that make it easier for other countries to participate or not and gives a neutral imprint, correctly or not. I cited before how other countries might be willing to have the IAEA inspect their reactors, but not the US.

BTW, erg's obsession with UNSCOM and Iraq as the source of anti-UN sentiment is off the mark.

Well, theres no obsession here, but a simple statement of fact. There have been and are good reasons to be dubious of the UN, but the main reason it has been the current major object of the WingNuts hate is because of Iraq and how UNSCOM and IAEA were actually right. We had all the right wing blogs and talk shows chortling at the start of the war about Hans Blix and the like couldn't find anything and how the US was going to find WMDs.

As I said before, I've never been a fan of the political wing of the UN and I wouldn't mourn its passing (although I think the net impact revenue wise on the US would probably be minimal given the expenditure in New York). But thats not automatically going to fix any differences the US has with the rest of the world.

Perhaps I should point out that before I was in high school, I had a great deal of respect for the UN. Then I participated in Model UN. Perhaps MUN is meant to engender a lot of respect for the UN. In my case, it meant reading a lot of resolutions and understanding how the UN worked, which only massively disillusioned me as to it. I won awards in MUN and feel like it definitely helped me understand the organization, but it certainly didn't make me like it. Quite the opposite.

I think its fine to get rid of the UN in general, although I think several agencies or organizations affiliated with it still serve a useful purpose. And its useful to consider alternate peacekeeping mechanisms. Perhaps local unions like the AU or NATO could do some peacekeeping.

We agree! Let's get rid of the UN, reconstitute and maintain the few agencies that are of value and deal with peacekeeping on an ad hoc basis, as we did in the Balkans.

"If there is any country that benefits from the UN politically, it is the USA. Little countries do recieve the benefits of the agencies, but not much else. Yet because they USA provides 20% of the budget, it expects that the UN does everything demanded of it as though the UN is something independent of its member states. If anything, I think Mr. Brown was being far too kind to the USA in his comments."

I think you must be right. I suggest a punishment. Move the UN right out of New York ! No more illegal parking. No more Waldorf Towers flats ! That would really punish us and we would see the error of our ways. Think I'm kidding ? How about a plebescite ? The UN does those, right ? Let's have one on whether the US wants the UN to stay here.

"I find it remarkable that Americans are so ignorant and stupid when it comes to world affairs. I agree that it is not Mr. Brown's place to make such comments, but as for the content, he was far too soft."

Yes, I can see that you feel that way. I have a secret to tell you. It isn't Rush Limbaugh or Fox News that should worry the UN. WEB Griffin is a popular novelist; probably read by hundreds of thousands in "Middle America." Guess what the plot of his latest novel is ? The Oil-for-Food scandal and guess who the villain is ? A UN official. I think that scandal, which shows the rotten core of the UN will be a topic for years.

erg: If you read my post carefully, I had you pegged as a multilateralist, not an anti-American.

On the international imprint: It's funny, but when people are actually in trouble, the last thing they want is an international imprint. International eacekeeping is understood by everybody to be a stopgap measure put in place because the US is too busy ro uninterested to solve the problem. The only people who prefer an international imprint are the bad guys, because it lets them get away with stuff.

Finally, I notice you didn't respond to my point about the UN's fall from grace in the 1970s. If you want to capture the feeling really well, try to find an old Policy Review piece by Tom Bethell called "The Lost Contintent of UNESCO."

erg: If you read my post carefully, I had you pegged as a multilateralist, not an anti-American.

Sorry, I thought you were putting me in both the 2nd and 3rd category. ALthough I wouldn't call myself as much a mulitlateralist as a cynic.

On the international imprint: It's funny, but when people are actually in trouble, the last thing they want is an international imprint. I

I'm thinking of a supposedly neutral party in a dispute (e.g. inspecting nuclear reactors in India), intervening in a place where the US has a less than glorious history and so on. In fact, tehre are multilateral institutions in the financial world and the legal world to deal with trade, finance, treaty and contract disputes between countries and international companies -- that alone should point out that international imprints are worth something.

Similarly, the fact that the Hariri murder is being investigated by a UN group does actually mean that non US people who wouldn't have accepted the results of a US investigation (especially given the loss of credibility in the wake of Iraq).

The only people who prefer an international imprint are the bad guys, because it lets them get away with stuff.

Its not a question of preference. The choice isn't between an ideal group of perfectly neutral peacekeepers who can perfectly identify the bad guys and the UN. Its often a choice between the UN and nobody. It would be nice if France and Belgium or the US were willing to deploy some of their best forces to the Congo, but the hard reality is that the choice was between nothing, i.e. leaving the rebels who were killing, roasting and eating villagers and between the UN's peacekeepers.

The fact is that peacekeeping is hard, complicated work. The US has not had a stellar record of peacekeeping either, with 2 notable failures in Lebanon and Somalia, and the mixed record in Bosnia and Iraq despite its far larger budgets, far better weaponry and better trained troops. Also, in the middle of civil wars, the choice isn't between bad guys and good, its normally between bad guys and worse. There also have been attempts (e.g. in Sudan and Bosnia) to bring genocide cases against participants in the International Court.

Finally, I notice you didn't respond to my point about the UN's fall from grace in the 1970s.

I'm not sure theres anything critical about the 70s, since theres always been posturing in the UN general assembly. [ And wrt UNESCO, I remember it was pushing press curbs on some bizarre rationale in the 70s so I've always been contemptuous of it]. The General assembly has little power anyway.

My point has always been that getting rid of the UN wouldnt' get rid of anti Americanism. And you would have to keep most of the agencies anyway, so you probably wouldn't save money (especially given how much money ends up in NY). If your really cared about peacekeeping, you'd still need peacekeeping groups and some organization to monitor them. Western troops would be far more expensive, and any other group would still have the same issues. Finally, you would need some sort of bodies for enforcing trade sanctions.

I'm not sure that the mix of agencies and ad-hoc bodies would be an improvement. It might be worth trying, but if we do so, we should be fully aware of the impact.

I will admit that I am proudly anti-American. In fact, i am "anti" anything that is too powerful. There is nothing more dangerous to the world then the concentration of power. The USA is not bad because of the books or music or food, even the people or the TV or the culture, i am anti-American because the USA is simply too powerful and too destructive. One of the best things about the UN is that it is an institution that helps balance American power. It provides the world's countries with a place where they can easily unite to promote policies that are in the best interests of the majority of the world's people. Without the UN or a similar institution, bilateral relations would become more important. Being that the USA has almost absolute military and economic power in the world, it would put the vast majority of the world's people at an even greater disadvantage. The USA is basically like a ghetto slum lord who holds enough property to keep the prices high and squeeze the renters. The UN and otehr forums like the WTO provide a forum for the renters to join forces and demand more rights.

I will gladly admit that there is lots of corruption and garbage that comes out of the poor world. I could probably come up with a list 1000 times longer then any of you about what is wrong with the Middle East and its leaders and even society, but they are minor crimes when seen in relation to the mass destruction the USA causes in the world.

I will just say again, I believe that Mr. Brown was out of line because it is his job to represent an institution that represents all nations, not to attack the member states. He should probably be fired. But the content of his speech was hardly note worthy. Again, the only reason it is getting any play at all is because the USA will use it as a justification for its continued threats to revoke its funding for the UN. This is because, if the member states and the agencies fear that the USA might withhold its funding, they are more likely to act in line with American criticism. Basically, it is blackmail. And that is what the USA does.

As for "middle America", they are being lied to by people like Rush or by Fox News or republicans. It is too bad really.

Oh, and for all the scandals that the UN is involved in, they pale in relation to the ones the US Government is responsible for on its own. I am not going to make a list, but even the savings and loans crisis was bigger then all the oil for food problems put together. And one of the Keating 5 (John McCain) is now a presidential contender, i man who is proven to have been paid off by Keating to support garbage legislation. So really, call out the UN for its problems. it has them and that will make it better if it is held responsible. But don't be so blind to act like the UN is worse then anything else. Overall, its record is probably excellent.

Exactly right Mike K. That’s the thing, for all of their winging and bitching, I’ve never seen any serious sign of a “Kick the US Out of the UN” campaign.

Malloch really missed a golden opportunity. Obviously, he got the go ahead from Annan because they are both leaving at the end of the year. So it was not a spur of the moment diatribe and was clearly intended as a perceived “pay back”.

So out comes a lefty British minion type to stick it to the man. Of course, if you are going send some lackey out to do your bitching you can’t go wrong with a Brit. They are truly in a class of their own when it comes to whining (that’s actually a sincere and constructive compliment).

So what the hell, why not call for the US out of the UN. Geneva here we come! Woohoo! Everyone wins. Don’t’ worry we will still be involved. Our first order will be to send a Democratic liaison (Clinton sounds perfect) to help write nasty letters to dictators who don’t listen to your missives.

Hmmmm.

What utter drivel.

I find it astonishing that anybody could blame FoxNews or Rush Limbaugh for hurting the UN's reputation in Middle America.

For God's sake! Rwanda! Oil for food! Rampant pedophilia! Corruption! Massive amounts of outright theft!

The litany is as endless as it is corrosive and frankly disgusting.

The UN doesn't need anybody else to ruin it's reputation.

Hmmmm.

But don't be so blind to act like the UN is worse then anything else. Overall, its record is probably excellent.

And this is a *supporter*?

Frankly America needs to leave the UN. It's a worthless bloated piece of garbage that has no other purpose than to legitimise dictators and institutionalise corruption.

And as for your information Mr. "anti-American". The S&L scandal was the work of private individuals, many of whom went to prison.

When was the *first* time a UN official was sent to prison?

UN: When you really really need someone to steal your money and rape your children.

Frankly America needs to leave the UN.

I tend to agree with you. There's no quicker way for us to lose our superpower pretensions than to leave the UN and see the results.

But I'm not sure we should take the quickest way off that tall narrow pedestal. It might be better to find a way to ease off it gradually.

For God's sake! Rwanda! Oil for food! Rampant pedophilia! Corruption! Massive amounts of outright theft!

I think you made a slight mistake there:

For God's sake ! Rwanda ! Rampant pedophilia (Abu Gharib) ! Corruption ! Massive amounts of outright theft (Iraq reconstruction) ! Oil Corruption ! Halditha

It's a worthless bloated piece of garbage that has no other purpose than to legitimise dictators and institutionalise corruption.

Does this mean that when democracies (such as those in Europe) criticize the US, or threaten a veto, you respect that because of your great respect for democracy ?

The S&L scandal was the work of private individuals, many of whom went to prison.

Help me out here. My memory is failing. What happened to Neil Bush ? And what about the Keating Five ? I could have sworn that one member of the 5 is currently running informally for some important position ?

When was the *first* time a UN official was sent to prison?

The UN has no authority to send someone to prison in general. The International Criminal Court does have some such authority in certain cases. Naturally, the US should support the idea of the UN being able to send lawbreakers to prison, or to the International Criminal Court, right ? Oops !!

UN: When you really really need someone to steal your money and rape your children.

US: When you really need someone to steal your money and shoot your children

No. I really don't believe that at all, but I just wanted to point out that the high horse that ed seems to think he;s on is actually horseshit.

Recently Mark Malloch Brown, the eloquent speaking number two at the United Nations, said that "Middle America" did not know how the US is constructively engaged with the UN because of UN detractors and too much unchecked UN-bashing and stereotyping over too many years. Friends, the UN deserves to be bashed and bashed hard. Please allow us to give you a glimpse into how the United Nations is run:

Hirings and promotions routinely violate UN rules and revolve around patronage and whom one knows rather than professional qualifications. Poorly performing managers are simply moved into different management slots while others are placed in senior positions only because of his nationality.

Salaries for UN employees are free of taxes and come with six weeks vacation, 11 holidays, 10 sick days that are used as vacation, plus 4 weeks of home leave, rental and housing grants to supplement an already generous salary (we all make an average of $7,000-$10,000 a month tax free), a pension at 8% of salary times years of service that can be cashed out tax free, and educational subsidies for children of UN employees. Many also participate in an “alternative work schedule” in which they get every other Friday off. But don’t even try to apply. Your application will not be acknowledged nor will you ever get invited for a job interview. You must know someone to work at the UN.

Several of us have advanced degrees in management and have been trained to manage large public organizations, yet we are blocked from advancing by arrogant men in the 50s with no management training, education, or experience - only sitting in their chairs because they are friends with someone a higher position. We threaten them because they know they are there based only on their connections.

And there is a profound lack of accountability within the UN regarding resource allocation. Simple procurement that would normally take five minutes using modern technology systems takes 2-3 months in the UN. And many United Nations Development Program country offices pay "local experts" outrageously high sums of money for products of dubious quality. Such contracts would never be made by other international aid agencies such as USAID that have much stronger internal controls and oversight.

We are all familiar with outrageous examples of graft and corruption within the UN system and yet time and again the scandal is covered up. In fact, a recent article on internal management in the Financial Times cited a UN-commissioned report released in 1994 that was remarkably damning and yet, as the article noted, nothing has changed which has led to this crisis in credibility of the UN.

Despite its dysfunctionality, if the UN were actually making a difference, many would mutter to themselves but the UN deserves its strongest bashing because of its profound inability to respond to genocide, war, famine, natural disasters, and corruption.

Kofi Annan, current head of the United Nations who ironically lives in a mansion in New York worth about $10 million, was head of peacekeeping operations in 1994 in Rwanda when 800,000 people died. In 2004, he said "I believed at that time that I was doing my best" despite that he held back UN troops from intervening to settle the conflict and declined to provide more logistic and material support to stop the slaughter. And don’t forget that ten years ago thousands of Bosnian Muslims were murdered by the Serb militias who were in a UN protected ‘safe haven’ with hundreds of UN soldiers assigned to defend them. Yet the UN stood by while the entire adult and teenage male population was systematically butchered.

Kofi Annan was unable to stop mismanagement of the Oil-for-Food Program that allowed Saddam Hussein's regime to embezzle $4.4 billion through pricing irregularities and an additional $5.7 billion through illegal oil smuggling. Kofi's son Kojo received payments from the Swiss company Cotecna which won a lucrative contract under the UN Oil for Food program.

Kofi Annan protected Ruud Lubbers, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, against a report that found him guilty of sexual harassment by declaring him innocent. This created a global protest against Annan, resulting in Lubbers being forced to resign.

Kofi Annan accepted a $500,000 prize from the ruler of Dubai, courtesy of a judges’ panel rife with U.N. connections, one member of which Annan then appointed to a high U.N. job (Annan was advised to take the prize money by Malloch Brown who rents a home in Westchester County from from his friend George Soros for $12,000 a month but can be adequately covered by Brown's salary at $287,087).

Kofi Annan remains in power despite continuing sexual abuse scandals by UN peacekeepers. A 2005 internal UN investigation found that sexual abuse has been reported in at least five countries where UN peacekeepers have been deployed including the Congo, Haiti, Burundi, Cote d’Ivoire, and Liberia.

And Kofi Annan remains in power while genocide continues in Darfur, while Zimbabwe tailspin into despotism, while up to a third of the population of some African countries will die from AIDS, and while corruption keeps the poorest countries in starkest poverty.

Kofi Annan and Mark Malloch Brown arrogantly ignore the fact that the quality of life of several of us has come close to being destroyed by the many bitter experiences we have experienced over the past decades. Most who work for the UN are so used to its dysfunctionality that they have NO idea how sick the organization is or they are unwilling to come forward because UN labor laws and protections are abysmal.

And to add insult to injury, the newly created IOIS (the new “independent” internal oversight panel established to “reform” the UN) has been strong-armed by Malloch Brown and is not independent because its budget comes directly from the UN, thus dissuading anyone from within the UN from coming forward. Don't think that Malloch Brown is an independent UN operative. Justin Leites – UNDP - was placed on administrative leave to campaign for U.S. Presidential candidate John Kerry - with MMB's approval.

And what really happened at UNDP? Why would Malloch Brown leave his influential post as head of UNDP to spend a year defending the scandals swirling around Kofi Annan and then announce that he would resign when Kofi leaves at the end of this year? Because he royally mismanaged UNDP! Everyone at UNDP knows this but is too scared to share the details of what happened for fear of retaliation by Brown. But ask UNDP Country Directors and UNDP Practice Managers what happened under King Mark’s reign and you will get a completely different picture of his mismanagement skills and bombastic ways.

As the walls literally crumble down around them, those who work for the UN and citizens who believe in the founding principles of the UN have no understanding how bad it really is. Unfortunately, we encourage young people who are seeking a career in international affairs to avoid the United Nations at all costs. We wish there would come a day when we would no longer make this recommendation.

Of course the senior leadership of the UN try to hide the profound problems of the UN but shame on them for saying that Americans don't know or understand how the US is engaged with the UN. If you and everyone in Middle America truly understood what ails the UN, the US, who funds $3.3 billion annually or 22% of the entire UN budget, would shut off the money spigot. In sum, the UN should be shuttered, allowing a brand new organization to emerge because the current UN is broken beyond repair.

For more information, please contact Edward Patrick Flaherty at info@iowatch.org who represents UN employees including our views here. Written by a concerned group of current and former UN employees.

Doesn't Bolton’s troubled, recess appointment ends later this summer. The administration’s balance of political capital is nearing overdraft, and opposition to Bolton’s renewal is palpable. Under the circumstances, one has wonder if Bolton’s bluster is an effort to marshal support from such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.

Ask Yourself, some of your statements (about graft and corruption) are probably accurate, but a lot of them are inaccurate or bogus.

You blame the UN for not intervening in Rwanda. Well, who was responsible ? The UN Security COuncil, including France and the US. You expect the UN to do something when the UNSC did not agree ?

You mention $4.4 Billion in graft in Oil For Food. According to Volcker, its 1.8Billion. You also blame the UN for not stopping the smuggling, but the UN had no authority to stop oil smuggling, and member nations including the US refused to act. Ob viously any graft is too much, but you rare exaggerating.

And Kofi Annan remains in power while genocide continues in Darfur, while Zimbabwe tailspin into despotism, while up to a third of the population of some African countries will die from AIDS, and while corruption keeps the poorest countries in starkest poverty.

Are you confusing KofI Annan with God, perchance ? The UN will act only if the UNSC acts on Zimbabwe and Darfur, and certainly the UN (or WHO) does not have anywhere near the resources to combat AIDS.

SOme of your other comments are equally hyperbolic. Your interesting snippets of life inside the UN are probably partly accurate, but given your tendency to resort to hyperbole, I would not accept all you said.

You also claim that UN jobs are very lucrative, and simulataenously claim that they have no labor protections, and so on.

If Bolton has his way, there will be no UN (which might be good), and there would also be no jobs, so I would be wary of what you wish for -- you might get it !!

Good! Shut it down!

Kofi Annan WAS authorized to act to protect the 800,000 who were ultimately slaughtered. He himself said in a 2004 New Yorker interview, "Mistakes were made." Do a quick review of the history here and you, too, will be appalled.

Whaaaa? regarding Oil for Food? It was $4.4 billion and how can you say the UN had no authority to stop the smuggling? Senior UN officials in charge of the program (who have been forced to resign) knew it was happening and could have stopped it but didn't. Simple as that.

We are not saying Kofi Annan is God but we are saying that the UN is not adequately addressing poverty, corruption, AIDS, etc. It could do so much better but doesn't because of its inefficiencies. The UN's AIDS budget is in the billions (annually) but the funds are stupifyingly mismanaged. Simple as that.

Yes, UN jobs are lucrative, and yes there are no labor protections. Don't you get it? Pay them well and make sure they can't say anything. If they do, deport them.

I tend to agree with you. There's no quicker way for us to lose our superpower pretensions than to leave the UN and see the results.
-J Thomas

Do you think the US's status as a superpower is based on

1) it's permanent seat on the UNSC

or

2) being the nation with the largest economy and strongest military?

I say that the US has a permanent seat on the UNSC because of 2). You seem to think that the US has the largest economy and strongest military because of 1).

Which is it?

Rosignol, this reminds me of a paper I got assigned in high school. "Does America's moral fiber come from our religious belief, or does our belief come from our moral fiber?"

We have superpower status because we're the only nation in the world willing to spend our money and blood to "project power". The russians used to be a superpower but they got tired of it.

Superpowers get into wars like vietnam and afghanistan. Superpowers bribe other nations to do trivial things and threaten them to get them not to do other trivial things. Superpowers maintain a war-capable economy even when they aren't actually attacking anybody at the moment.

Being a nonsuperpower in a world with two superpowers is like living in a neighborhood with two bullies. Nobody really wants to take on either of them; mostly everybody tries to play one off against the other. The guys who get beat up are the ones who fail at that game. We of course thought we were leading the free world against the evil empire -- what we were doing was getting played off.

Being a nonsuperpower in a world with one superpower is much more annoying. They go around looking for an enemy and there's nobody to play them off against. They think they own everything. Very irritating. There's a natural tendency for everybody to get together and arrange a group shunning.

The UN is practically *designed* to do group shunnings with. We shunned red china. We shunned north korea when the USSR guy walked out of the SC, and the UN was officially at war for awhile. We shunned iraq when they invaded kuwait. We shunned Serbia. We came close to shunning south africa. The UN would shun israel except the USA keeps vetoing it. We're trying to get the UN to shun iran except nobody but us really wants to.

So when we walk out of the UN, we're pretty much inviting them to shun us. Would britain veto it for us? Maybe. It's a cinch nobody else would.

Of course various groups would evade sanctions against us. Our money is so valuable ... so valuable ... ahhh ... there would be this strong incentive to secretly buy our exports (at a discount for smuggling), and pay us in dollars. But would there be much incentive to sell stuff to us and get more dollars? Would the rest of the world want more dollars than they already have? Well, but they really want our exports. We sell so much intellectual property that they need ... things that they are required by international law to pay us for....

Of course the world would keep selling us oil. We're a big market and without us they have more oil than they know what to do with, oil-sellers have to keep selling to us or their prices go down. And we'd pay so much extra for it. They need our dollars so they can ... so they can ... oh yes, if they didn't have dollars to trade with each other, the world economy would collapse. Yeah, that's the ticket. Their computers can't keep track of international trade unless we sell them the ones and zeros.

Maybe we could create a replacement for the UN and get the world to go along. But until we do, without the UN we aren't a superpower. Without the UN we're just the world's strongest rogue nation.

Superpowers get into wars like vietnam and afghanistan.

I dunno if you've noticed, but nations 'get into wars'. The only significant difference between an 'average' nation and a superpower is that superpowers tend to get into more than ususal (as their interests and entanglements are more extensive- a superpower has more to protect), and they tend to win, as the only thing that can defeat a superpower is another superpower (either acting directly or via proxies).

Superpowers bribe other nations to do trivial things and threaten them to get them not to do other trivial things.

This behavior is far from being exclusive to superpowers. Please study some history.

Superpowers maintain a war-capable economy even when they aren't actually attacking anybody at the moment.

This is also far from being exclusive to superpowers- any nation that thinks it is threatened does this.

For example, the European Coal and Steel Community- one of the major components of what evolved into the European Union- was basically about pooling war materials so that the nations of Western Europe would be capable of defending themselves, i.e., so they would have a 'war-capable economy'.

You see, nations that do not have a 'war-capable economy' and are next to an aggressive neighbor tend to get conquered.

Being a nonsuperpower in a world with two superpowers is like living in a neighborhood with two bullies. Nobody really wants to take on either of them; mostly everybody tries to play one off against the other. The guys who get beat up are the ones who fail at that game. We of course thought we were leading the free world against the evil empire -- what we were doing was getting played off.

Your analogies are as superficial as your understanding of history.

Being a nonsuperpower in a world with one superpower is much more annoying. They go around looking for an enemy and there's nobody to play them off against. They think they own everything. Very irritating. There's a natural tendency for everybody to get together and arrange a group shunning.

...nevermind that what is happening in reality has no similarity to your expectations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_the_United_States#Diplomatic_relations

[...]

The United States has one of the largest diplomatic presences of any nation. Almost every country in the world has both a U.S. embassy and an embassy of its own in Washington, D.C.. Only a few nations do not have formal diplomatic relations with the United States.

[...list of 8 nations, out of the ~190 or so on this planet]

In practical terms however, these lack of formal relations do not impede the U.S.'s communication with these nations. [...]

You said something about shunning?

----

Some practical advice: when reality does not do what your ideology says is going to happen, there is a problem with either your understanding of what is going on, or a problem with your ideology.