The Collapse of the United Nations.

I have the sneaking suspicion that the Oil for Food Scandal will be the undoing of the United Nations. The United Nations was created as a replacement for the failed League of Nations that was dissolved due to its inability to prevent WWII. The Oil for food program simply involves too many high level officials in the UN thus preventing any hope of cleaning up the UN�s reputation.

As many of you know the US provides most of the UN�s funding and Senator Norm Coleman who is investigating the Oil for Food Scandal called for Kofi Annan to resign yesterday and today Bush declined to give Annan a vote of confidence. Annan�s son has been proven to have directly benefited from the Oil for Food Scandal. There are lobbyist currently laboring to get the UN kicked out of the US.

All of this adds up to big problems for the UN and I don�t think they will survive.

News Story
story.news.yahoo.com.../nm/20041202/pl_nm/iraq_un_annan_dc_6

Oil For Food Scandal
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Kicking UN out of US
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is another little tid bit that convinces me even more that my prediction is correct. The US ambassador to the UN has stepped down. I really do believe the United Nations is going to fold and be replaced by something different.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

can i see a figure for the US payments BTW?
because some have stated as you have done that the US pays for most of the UN but others say you pay less than a third
care to show evidence to back up your claim?
this replaced by something diffrent is stupid!
come on! just because its broke we should replace it? no thats idiot comercial thinking that puts people like my dad out of work! if its broke you fix it like any good engineer or joiner or anyone with a trade will tell you.
do you buy a new pair of boots if the sole comes loose? no you get them resoled!
jeez.

It occurs to me... if the UN's biggest supporter, funder, etc. doesn't listen to it, doesn't abide its decisions, and circumvents its rules, who the hell WILL listen to it?

DE

Why do you think the US supports Koffi and isn't calling for his resignation? Because the Bush administration is knee-deep in the scandal. I read today that the US can't account for 8 billion dollars!
This scandal is good for the neo-cons to keep people confused and angry, but don't expect anything to come from it. Bush and his cronies wouldn't do anything to expose their dirty tricks.

Originally posted by BlackJackal
This is another little tid bit that convinces me even more that my prediction is correct. The US ambassador to the UN has stepped down. I really do believe the United Nations is going to fold and be replaced by something different.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Agreed. And why do you suppose the Bush visit to Canada, and also the talk of consolidating Canada, Mexico, and the US? Somehow that seems to tie in.

Amazing!

Take a look at this Bush has stated that all future monetary contributions to the UN are linked to a clear outcome of the Oil for Food Scandal

President George W. Bush on Thursday linked future US funding of the United Nations to clear accounting of what went on under the multi-billion dollar oil-for-food programme in Iraq.


�In order for the taxpayers of the United States to feel comfortable about supporting the United Nations, there has to be an open accounting, and I look forward to that process going forward,� he told journalists.

news.ft.com...=7fc8f3dc-d258-11d8-b661-00000e2511c8.html

Originally posted by devilwasp
can i see a figure for the US payments BTW?
because some have stated as you have done that the US pays for most of the UN but others say you pay less than a third
care to show evidence to back up your claim?

people.howstuffworks.com...

In 2001, the U.S. paid $612 million toward the operating budget, $716 million toward peacekeeping and $2.2 billion toward voluntary contributions.

In the normal operating budget, the U.S. covered 22% of the budget. Other big contributors: Japan (19.6%), Germany (9.8%), France (6.5%), the U.K. (5.6%), Italy (5.1%), Canada (2.6%) and Spain (2.5%).

What I fear is that A) if the UN disappears, it'll be replaced by something US-oriented; B) it won't be replaced at all; C) other countries won't have a word to say in its dismantling, it'll happen because the US wills it; and D) all the programs that aren't in cause and do good work (UNICEF and UNESCO, namely) will disappear.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by BlackJackal
This is another little tid bit that convinces me even more that my prediction is correct. The US ambassador to the UN has stepped down. I really do believe the United Nations is going to fold and be replaced by something different.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Agreed. And why do you suppose the Bush visit to Canada, and also the talk of consolidating Canada, Mexico, and the US? Somehow that seems to tie in.

So you think maybe NAFTA and the fact that our borders are left open is only the beginning of this stuff?

How long until we're known as Oceania? If Orwell were alive, he should sue Bush and Friends for copyright infringement or something!

Originally posted by BlackJackal
I have the sneaking suspicion that the Oil for Food Scandal will be the undoing of the United Nations.

Corruption very rarely leads to the destruction of an entire instituion. I think that, if they actualyl do change the charter such that other nations are given the veto on the security council, then the US will pull out, and then it might go the way of the League.

The United Nations was created as a replacement for the failed League of Nations that was dissolved due to its inability to prevent WWII. The Oil for food program simply involves too many high level officials in the UN thus preventing any hope of cleaning up the UN�s reputation.

As many of you know the US provides most of the UN�s funding
I thought the US was like a year behind on its dues or sometihng?

Senator Norm Coleman who is investigating the Oil for Food Scandal called for Kofi Annan to resign

Rather silly isn't it tho? The guy hasn't completed his investigation yet, he hasn't concluded anything, why the heck would annan resign now?

The US ambassador to the UN has stepped down.

Notice that he stepped down to 'hang out with his family' and that he was thought to have been a possible Sec. of State candidate. When Rice was nom'd, then he resigned, it probably has more to do with the end of his political career and domestic issues, rather than any statement on UN relations.

i really think that the issue of giving some other or new nation the veto on the security council will be the big issue. Apparently it will require that the senate/congress ratify the UN charter, and I don't think that, with a republican dominated senate, er house, er congress, er, government, that it would pass. Can't see anyone arguing for giving nigeria or pakistan a veto over US security issues. Even giving it to another 'freindly' nation could be a disaster. Apparently, when China was given the veto, it was because it was Nationalist China. Man, talk about a backfire.

President George W. Bush on Thursday linked future US funding of the United Nations to clear accounting of what went on under the multi-billion dollar oil-for-food programme in Iraq.

Whoa. Crap jackal, maybe your right 'bout that. If the US cuts funding, then the UN might just fall apart on its own, or become entirely irrelevant, even if the US doesn't pull out.

I would like to say, however, that the UN is a failure on the global peace issue in general and, as politics go, pretty much already irrelevant. However, -lots- of great, important, humanitarian work -is- done thru it. Its just not an effective political or military body. Maybe thats all the globe can deal with right now anyway right? How can a foreign body with no military of its own -regulate- war? No nation can give up its security interests to a foreign body completely, as the Iraq War demonstrated. I mean, no matter what, it was obvious that the US was determined to go to war, and there wasn't anything the UN could do to stop it. I dare say that an actual General Assembly and Security Council vote against it, even with out a US veto, would'nt've prevented it. Perhaps the global organization shouldn't do that kind of stuff anyway.

The question is did Annan really know about this or was it something that was going on while he was in the leader seat.
I don't think he can be held accountable if he is in the drivers seat and he did not know about this. But instead he should lead the investigation about this and make sweeping reforms to correct the issue. Then implement watchdogs to make sure that this kind of happening does not occur again.

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Amazing!

Take a look at this Bush has stated that all future monetary contributions to the UN are linked to a clear outcome of the Oil for Food Scandal

In order for the taxpayers of the United States to feel comfortable about supporting the United Nations, there has to be an open accounting, and I look forward to that process going forward,� he told journalists.

Should've been open accounting from the get go, I see nothing wrong with this statement nor its implications. The U.N. for too long has been a mystery of financial dealings and and influence peddling.

As a U.S. taxpayer I appreciate Bush calling for openess of the books, my only criticism is what took so long!

The U.N. has become in a way like some in U.S. politics whereby they have made themselves irrellevant by pandering to special interests at the expense of the main mission of world peace.

If they were doing their job the Iraqi invasion would not have been required. China, Iran, India, Israel, North Korea, South Africa (since given them up) and Pakistan never would have nuclear weapons or be close to having them. In other words no proliferation would have been allowed whatsoever.

Due to a lack of backbone coldwar and third world politics have enabled many countries to aquire the means to mass destruction or nearly so.

All the programs that are done in the name of humanitarian needs mean nothing if a world war breaks out and billions die because of abject greed on the part of those in power.

A history lesson can be learned by parralleling the modern day UN with the League of Nations legacy prior to WW-II.

The simularities are getting to be shocking.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Corruption very rarely leads to the destruction of an entire instituion. I think that, if they actualyl do change the charter such that other nations are given the veto on the security council, then the US will pull out, and then it might go the way of the League.

According to History this is the reason the League was dissolved.

By the mid-1930s, however, the league was being consumed by its own inability to exert power, and the rise of fascism in Italy and Germany quickly made it look even more irrelevant. Nazi Germany withdrew from the league in 1933, and Italy attacked Ethiopia in 1935. Neither country was penalized for its actions, but by 1936 the league had become so marginal that virtually all meaningful diplomacy was being conducted on a bilateral level. With the onset of the Second World War, the league had all but ceased to function, although it continued to officially exist until 1945 when its duties were formally usurped by the United Nations.

www.nps.gov...

Now lets look at what the League and the UN have in common.

1. The inability to exert any power. (ie. Rwanda, Iraq, etc.)
2. The rise of global terrorism as compared to fascism
3. Attacks without penalties (ie Palestine)

Mix all this with the extreme corruption of the organization and I truly feel that it will collapse.

@devilwasp

It seems the US payed most of its debts between 2003 and 2004. Suppose thay didn't want to side step the UN AND be massively in debt at the same time... i think that is called politics.

Originally posted by Corinthas
@devilwasp

It seems the US payed most of its debts between 2003 and 2004. Suppose thay didn't want to side step the UN AND be massively in debt at the same time... i think that is called politics.

yet i still see no figures. i looked on the UN today and seen none.
now i think the US is wanting to return to pre ww1 policy, secret treaties and alliances and the second version of ww1 = ww3

While it's true the US did illegally trade with Saddam, this whole oil-for-food scandal is over-hyped payback against people who didn't support the occupation of Iraq.

And a counterpoint could be, why didn't they support the war in Iraq?

I don't think the UN will collapse. What will happen is that a consensus for reform will build and the rules will change. Canada's Prime Minister has been promoting this on his recent travels abroad. Secondly, I'm hoping that the food for oil scandal will stimulate internal reforms and a search for mechanisms where UN beauraucrats can be held accountable. These reforms will have to be led by the senior members of the club, but don't expect anything to happen quickly.

The UN won't disappear. Its difficult to percieve this from the US, which doesn't need the UN, but over many parts of the world the UN is actually held to be a thing of importance and a respected institution. For many smaller nations, the UN is one of few avenues that they have for any kind of influence, and of course, it is also a source of aid. The issues of corruption and beauraucratic paralysis are not viewed as problematic to the same extent in countries that are themselves corrupt and have even more amateurish beauraucracies.