Why is there a U.N. instead of no U.N.?

The question paraphrases Martin Heidegger's "fundamental question" of metaphysics, and this is important. Metaphysically, I don't know that the U.N. should be. Its structure and policies contradict its nature.

Claudia Rosett has a has a good article in this morning's NRO which begins:
Secretary General Kofi Annan has now decided that the U.N.-authorized investigation into Oil-for-Food, the "independent inquiry" headed by former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, will be funded with money left over in the administrative account of...Oil-for-Food.

In other words, Volcker's investigation, with its $30-million projected budget, will now be funded out of one of the same Oil-for-Food accounts Volcker is supposed to be investigating.

That's bad enough. The other problem with Annan's plan is that all Oil-for-Food money flowed from the oil wells of Iraq and was meant to bring aid to the Iraqi people. Any leftover funds belong by rights to the Iraqis, to serve their needs — not those of the U.N.
Methinks I'm nonplussed almost to the point of paralyzation.



Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?