The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
And as a child of mid level international organization employees I was 'shocked, shocked' to hear that there might be corruption at the UN. Way too many senior international organization managers are there through patronage rather than merit. Accountability is close to non existent, petty corruption (junkets, gifts) is rife. Again, I'm not saying that this is something unusual for a public bureaucracy, but one shouldn't have any illusions about the UN being any more pure than, say, the DOD or your typical US state bureaucracy. At the same time, just as one seeks to eliminate that sort of stuff at home, one should also do so at the UN.
Way too many senior international organization managers are there through patronage rather than merit.
There is a need for reform in the UN, and a decent initiative has been underway throughout this year - that is until Bolton showed up. I did an entry on this back in late August.
The US diplomatic corps may be highly professional, but at the highest levels it is just a way to give campaign donors a paid vacation.
The EU has, in many ways, become an elephant cemetery of sorts, at least as far as Spanish political parties are concerned. The losers of national political battles get sent to the EU Commision or the Parliament (Almunia, Borrell, Vidal Quadras, Mayor Oreja). The UK does the same, just look at Peter Mandelson.
So yes, not only is diplomat a fancy word for spy, but diplomacy is a dirty and corrupt. That doesn't mean that international institutions don't play a role, or don't play it well.
The current woes of the UN have a lot to do with the fact that the US does no longer control the international system that they set up after WWII (same with the WTO, for instance) and wants to dismantle it. The whole oild for food scandal (and the reversal of blame for the 1998 inspector crisis) are just for internal US consumption, to justify arrears or outright undermining of the institution (a la Bolton) to the US public.
Which leads me back to the suggestion that the rest of the world should just increase their contributions by 28% to make the US's 22% unnecessary. After all, the UN already operated without US funds for several years in the 1980's.
A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by gmoke - Oct 1
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 24 3 comments
by Oui - Sep 19 19 comments
by Oui - Sep 13 36 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 11 5 comments
by Cat - Sep 13 9 comments
by gmoke - Oct 1
by Oui - Sep 3021 comments
by Oui - Sep 29
by Oui - Sep 28
by Oui - Sep 2712 comments
by Oui - Sep 2620 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 243 comments
by Oui - Sep 1919 comments
by gmoke - Sep 173 comments
by Oui - Sep 153 comments
by Oui - Sep 15
by Oui - Sep 1411 comments
by Oui - Sep 1336 comments
by Cat - Sep 139 comments
by Oui - Sep 1210 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 115 comments
by Oui - Sep 929 comments
by Oui - Sep 713 comments
by Oui - Sep 61 comment
by Oui - Sep 1216 comments