UNSCAM has reached the Norwegian media. Aftenposten's Kristin Nilsen worries about what this will do to the UN's reputation:

Accusations of corruption are being made against the former UN oil for food program to Iraq. If the accusations are true, they come at a very bad time. ..

For critics of the UN in the US, and they are many, particularly among the neo-conservatives, these accusations are simply further evidence that the UN is corrupt, and unable to do anything right. The critics have never wanted the UN to play any role in Iraq, and now claim that the accusations raise questions about the ability of the world organization to take on the task.

That's one way to react: This is bad because the "neo-cons" will use it to fight UN involvement in Iraq. Another more honest reaction would be: This is bad, and it confirms some of the criticism against the UN. As Jens Christian Andvig at NUPI says to Vårt Land:

Norway is among those countries which are somewhat naive about the UN system. We prefer to see only the good sides of the UN, while we refuse to see that the UN as a public organ is not particularly useful, efficient or good. Thereby criticism is left to the American right, which seeks to weaken the UN.

I'm not with those who object to the UN on principle. Those people do not, usually, live in small countries that any great power could walk over in weeks, and they seem to have an exaggerated faith in their own country's future strength and moral standards. What the US has done since 9/11 has been mostly right (though flawed), but we can't depend on there always being a government in Washington that takes terrorism seriously, and which sees the promotion of democracy and human rights as beneficial to national interest. There haven't been before, (and only partly is now. Whatever happened to putting pressure on Saudi Arabia?)

We need something more durable. The UN could provide that. There could be some sort of basic - very basic - world law. It would give the UN authority to prevent not only genocide and outright violations of sovereignity, but covert violations such as terrorist sponsorship, and severe violations of basic human rights, as well as research of nuclear weapons. It would be more than than an option, it would be a requirement of the world to ensure that all human beings everywhere have a few basic rights guaranteed. Words on paper would not be enough, there would have to be a willingness to carry them out.

This is not possible today. I want it to happen, and if it was possible, it would be worth giving up some national sovereignity on foreign policy to achieve, including by the United States.

But it's not possible, and I don't see how the UN we have today can change into a UN that actually makes a difference. Can't see it. What we do have is an organization that does some good, and functions as a meeting place for top officials to talk, but which is weak, even paralyzed, in the face of catastrophies, oppression and non-obvious security threats. It is also, as this case indicates, corrupt. This is a problem not because it gives ammunition to enemies of the UN, but because corruption is bad, and if the UN is ever to be useful it must be transparent and trustworthy. A UN that isn't is worthless.

Kristin Nilsen's reaction here ("comes at a bad time") is the kind of reaction that stands in the way of solving the problem. You can't build anything good on lies and corruption. Some aspects of the UN are impossible to reform, but at least corruption we can fight. And that is far more important than UN involvement in Iraq.

(Update: Lars Ruben Hirsch also writes about this.)

A few years ago, I probably would have agreed with you that the UN was a basically noble organization that should ultimately run things in the interest of humanity. Oddly enough, it was a Norwegian that changed my mind.

I watched in horror as Terje Roed?-Larsen went after Israel with a hanging rope at the front of a UN lynch mob. (Remember the "Jenin massacre--that was no misunderstanding on the part of the UN. It was the UN lynch mob in action.) Suddenly, the world changed for me. The good guys were no longer the good guys. It was a nightmare--yet it was true.

Then, of course, came the run-up to the Iraq war, which I followed intently. The Oil for Food scandal, of course, makes it even more clear what is going on. Unfortunately, humans can be evil, and the UN in action, whose doings I now actually read about, has proven to me that the dream of world government is in such a distant future that it belongs with other Star Trekian fantasies like faster-than-lightspeed travel.

I wrote a little piece on this, little over a month ago.. Seems that the issue wouldnt just die, and has gained such momentum, that even norwegian media could not ignore it any more. To most norwegians, a perspective gained through their media & politicians, the UN is a organization without flaw or error, and most cannot understand the skepticism of yankees of letting the UN run world affairs. For anyone interested, the difficulty of finding a ton of shit in the UN, is suprisingly little.

Totoro: "the dream of world government is in such a distant future that it belongs with other Star Trekian fantasies like faster-than-lightspeed travel."

But we don't need a full world government. That would be risky, as democracy has never been tried on that scale before. I would prefer to delay that experiment for as long as possible. All we need is very limited global rule of law, ensuring a few basic rights to all human beings. I agree about Rød Larsen, but that is a fault of the current UN. There is not, by definition, a Rød Larsen behind the scenes in any variant of the UN imaginable. It has nothing at all to do with the _idea_ of the UN as such, only with the particular ideology popular with the current one.

Gard: Um, are you aware that all your coments link to porn sites? I've removed it now. Sounds like something a virus/trojan would do, automatically filling in URL in form input fields named "URL". Or something a person with an unusual source of income would do.

What!!! I was NOT aware of that!! Are you serious..? F..k off.. (It would though explain why I am so focused on preserving western "freedoms".. he).. Bjørn, I know this is not your field to correct random commenters dataproblems, but I (who posses only moderate computer skills) would be most greatful, if you could send me an easy suggestion on how to get rid of it.. Norton cant find anything, but it has not been updated in a few months.. Youre a data guy arent you? Well, you dont have to post it.. gard@rimeligok.no is my mailadr. I dont want to be associated/responsible for the spreading of filth..

G

The UN was created after WW II and it's power structure hasn't changed to reflect the world today.

The US and other democratic nations that are fed up with the UN's corruption and hypocrisy should withdraw. In turn, they should form a new UN of democratic nations. Only true democratic nations would be allowed to join. Unfortunately, that means 75% or more of the worlds nation would be ineligible to join until they became modern democratic states.

One thing unmentioned in this thread so far is that incredible hypocrisy that exists at the UN. The UN human rights commision is populated by some of the worlds worst human rights offenders. Saudi Arabia, Libya, Sudan, Syria and Cuba sit in judgement. And of course they find Israel to be the worlds worst offender and absolve themselves of any wrong.

Gard: There, it happened again. ;) I haven't heard of a virus like that, but it sounds like something that could be done. Try updating Norton. If that doesn't work, send a mail to their support, or try some other anti-virus software.

You might also want to check for adware. Spybot Search and Destroy is pretty good. http://www.safer-networking.org/

Gard: Follow Bjørn's advice on downloading Spybot. You should also download adAware. It's similar to Spybot, but it catches some things it doesn't, and vice versa.

Try to google for a little utility named 'hijackthis' if adAware/Spybot doesn't fix your problem. (No, it won't hijack your computer..) It will basically list all the stuff running in your memory and what's loaded at startup. You then get the option to check and delete potentially harmful objects. However, I would advice you not to delete anything unless you're absolutely sure it's something harmful. Hijackthis doesn't discern between legitimate system operations and spyware.

But do not despair. Save the listing in a log file and post it on one of the forums devoted to solving spyware-related problems (google and ye shall find), or email it to me, and I'll have a look at it.

If you guys want something against spyware, I would recommend Spysweeper. It is much better than Spybot. You can test it for free, but then you have to pay for it:

http://www.webroot.com/wb/products/spysweeper/index.php?rc=266&ac=566

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/index.php

Well, goody for you guys, it hit Britain earlier this week.

This is big, but the world powerful want this buried.

New blog which covers UNSCAM - Friends of Saddam

http://acepilots.com/unscam

Sandy P: "Well, goody for you guys, it hit Britain earlier this week."

To be fair to Aftenposten, they did mention it a month ago. No one else did, though, and haven't until this week.

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article763677.ece

It is probably good that this stuff is in the European press, and maybe people might even pay attention to it. The likelihood of its making the slightest bit of difference is probably nil, though. The reaction of people who value the UN SHOULD be "this is terrible, let's do what we need to do to get to the bottom of this, and fix matters so that something like this never happens again because the UN is too important to be infected with bad things like that." Instead the reaction is "this is terrible because it gives ammunition to critics of the UN." Well, maybe the critics are critics precisely because they think - apparently accurately - that things like UNSCAM are inevitable in the UN in its current form. If the left-wing European intelligentsia thinks the UN is worthwhile, they should try to fix it in order to take the substantive issue away from the critics, not complain about who has the ability to score rhetorical points.

As an American resident in NY, I can tell you that my view of the UN is that it is hopelessly rotten at its core. Its very premise is flawed, the execution is flawed, and its structure breeds corruption. It extends even down to the little things - ask any NYer about something as seemingly trivial as diplomatic parking spots and parking tickets. Or the street closures for the dueling motorcades. The arrogance coupled with disregard is just astounding.

True, it is unlikely to really change anything. Europeans are trained from childhood to venerate the UN as some sort of civil religion.

I wrote about this some time back, with examples of how schools "indoctrinate" kids to sing the UN's praises, literally: http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/2004/02/06.html#a4555

Jan Haugland, Bergen, and Bjorn . . .

I'm slowly becoming aware of just how monochromatic the thinking is in Norway and other European countries (not all of them, I hope).

When did this happen? Did something change in recent decades to make Norwegians and others totally subject to groupthink, or has this always been true?

I read several European blogs in English, and this is the impression I'm getting. But maybe it's a false impression. I'd love to hear what you and what Bjorn think about my questions.

Hi Totoro, I wanted to respond to your question. I've been around a fairly long time have seen many different trends develop. I would say, yes, in general, the media in Europe seems to be, and I like your word, "monochromatic." The major media is the same here (Thank God for our talk radio). I think this process started toward the end of the time that Kennedy got us into Vietnam and it really took off after Nixon energized the left with his "conservatism" although it was probably more of a personality issue. Generationally, what you have now is a 60's activist prisim on the world from, really, media and "liberal" politicans (especially in Europe). The relative conservatism of the preceding Eisenhower and Adenauer generation has not been at all in the consciousness of the public for the last 35 years for the vast majority of Europeans and Americans. Conservative values are really burgeoning now here in the US. Europe, however, seems to me, to be stuck in a sort of vague carry-over of the horrors of WWII and have lost their capacity to even evaluate differences of all sorts. There is a passivity and a lack, of may I dare say, a "will." Everything is cool, dope, ecology and let's, as we have heard around here, "Can't we all get along." These are important issues but have become buzz words. History advises differently. I hope I'm not rambling too much. Bye.

Milan/Redondo Beach CA

Thanks for your input. Fortunately, in the U.S. the activist or liberal generation is nearing its final years in control of the mass media. Those shopworn liberals will be put out to pasture in the next few years. Then the management will want more "cutting edge" reporters and editors, who will be more conservative and warlike than their predecessors. They won't have the Vietnam and Nixon baggage as part of their outlook.

Europe, however, is different. Would like to hear to the opinions of others on this subject. Thanks.

It's hit Australia, Instapundit linked.

UN out of US!

Totoro, Europe has been in serious decline for decades now. I hope she can still recover, but she will have to do it soon. If not, this caricature may well become the reality:

http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/news/index.cfm?instanceid=61499

Member nations of the European Union have announced plans to discontinue their status as individual countries in order to merge into one giant theme park! The new park will be called EuroWorld and will cover the entire continent of what is now known as Europe. The decision was made by the EU countries in response to their collective realization that no one in Europe has had an innovative idea in well over a century.

With nothing new to offer visitors, the European countries decided to stop pretending they were still relevant, and to start celebrating their colorful pasts. "Our stagnant continent has been a virtual museum for decades," explains an unnamed EU representative. "Many could argue that we already were nothing more than an amusement park. The decision to legally become a large theme park is really only a formality."

Great post Ali, I nearly fell out of my chair when I went to that link. That weekly is the original "Onion." It's been around a long time and I always fantasized that they sat around smoking dope thinking up those things and getting paid for it. I thought it was great satire.

Aftenposten's Kristin Nilsen:
"For critics of the UN in the US, and they are many, particularly among the neo-conservatives, these accusations are simply further evidence that the UN is corrupt, and unable to do anything right. The critics have never wanted the UN to play any role in Iraq, and now claim that the accusations raise questions about the ability of the world organization to take on the task."

Very good, Kristin! Right in one guess.

As Obi-Wan Kenobi said, "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy."

Aftenposten's Kristin Nilsen:
"For critics of the UN in the US, and they are many, particularly among the neo-conservatives, these accusations are simply further evidence that the UN is corrupt, and unable to do anything right. The critics have never wanted the UN to play any role in Iraq, and now claim that the accusations raise questions about the ability of the world organization to take on the task."

Very good, Kristin! Right in one guess.

As Obi-Wan Kenobi said, "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy."

Oops... Forgot to put my info in the previous post (blushes)

Tim Blair's reporting that UNSCAM's about to hit big time.

The UN has two fatal flaws:

1) The goals of the UN membership do not match the goals of either the US (open traditional-definition-Liberal society) or of Europe (collectivist utopian society).

2) The UN has no power to enforce any decision. Without the power to enforce, it cannot police its members or influence world events. Of course, unless the UN is restructured such that it's goals align with US goals, there is no chance that the US will allow the UN power to enforce. Conversely, the EU has neither the will nor the means to equip the UN with enforcement power.

net-net? Bizarre UN actions on a routine basis and complete ineffectivity at policing around the world.

Thanks for that insightful comment! It makes interesting reading, especially when I need a payday loans.

Just thought I would pop in again - love your site - you've done a WONDERFUL job - will be back often. I have put you in my links - hope you don't mind.
[url=http://numso.tripod.com/acqua-di-parma.htm]Acqua di parma[/url]
[url=http://numso.tripod.com/calvin-klein-fragrance.htm]Calvin klein fragrance[/url]
[url=http://numso.tripod.com/calvin-klein-swim-wear.htm]Calvin klein swim wear[/url]
[url=http://numso.tripod.com/calvin-klein-watch.htm]Calvin klein watch[/url]
[url=http://numso.tripod.com/fashion-week.htm]Fashion week[/url]
[url=http://numso.tripod.com/index.htm]Calvin klein watch[/url]
[url=http://numso.tripod.com/mark-wahlberg.htm]Mark wahlberg[/url]
[url=http://numso.tripod.com/white-shoulders.htm]White shoulders[/url]

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/676