Pompous Asses and the UN

In a speech that the Deputy Secretary General gave yesterday - Mark Malloch Brown - was criticized as making harsh comments on the US political system. I can understand the criticism but I wanted to read the actual speech for myself. When one does, the criticism that Brown received in the blogosphere seems justified. Forget the comments about Fox news or the assumption that somehow the media in the US has prevented people in middle America from knowing the truth about the UN. The speech is a good example of what is fundamentally flawed about the UN.

Brown started early in the speech to comment "I am going to give what might be regarded as a rather un-UN speech. Some of the themes -- that the United Nations is misunderstood and does much more than its critics allow -- are probably not surprising. But my underlying message, which is a warning about the serious consequences of a decades-long tendency by US Administrations of both parties to engage only fitfully with the UN, is not one a sitting United Nations official would normally make to an audience like this."

He goes on to argue that our lack of consistent support (certainly he does not mean fiscal support - remember we pay about a quarter of his bloated tax free salary) will ultimately undermine the UN. The UN is ultimately a product of the political environment. Even in its founding years, despite what Brown suggests, it was not without criticism. But in the last decade under Annan's leadership the UN has drifted. Is Brown suggesting that diplomatic rules preclude domestic discussions from raising questions about effectiveness? If the UN wants to use the money that the US political system offers to it, they should be willing to give more than lip service to reforming the institution. But Brown does only the minimum.

Brown toadied for his boss "Today, we are coming to the end of the 10-year term of arguably the UN’s best-ever Secretary-General, Kofi Annan. But some of his very successes -- promoting human rights and a responsibility to protect people from abuse by their own Governments; creating a new status for civil society and business at the UN -- are either not recognized or have come under steady attacks from anti-UN groups." Who actually successfully promoted civil society in nations around the world - the UN or can it be argued that the UN actions in many venues impeded the improvement of civil institutions?

Isn't this the same administration that is tainted and rife with the corruption of the oil for food program? Isn't this the diplomatic organization that had some of the worst abusers of human rights in the leadership of the Committee on Human Rights (I will talk a bit about the proposed reforms in a minute)? Brown continues "Yet for many policymakers and opinion leaders in Washington, let alone the general public, the roles I have described are hardly believed or, where they are, remain discreetly underplayed. To acknowledge an America reliant on international institutions is not perceived to be good politics at home." Of course not, when the UN has consistently shown a lack of even a basic understanding of the principles that helped to create the organization - the role of the Security Council, the need to take action, etc.

The US needs to maintain a delicate balance with international institutions. We need to be willing to work with them - but at the same time, there are times when we should not be restrained from criticizing the institution and likewise from trying to use any reasonable tactic to get the institution to reform or die.

Brown said "However, inevitably a moment of truth is coming. Because even as the world’s challenges are growing, the UN’s ability to respond is being weakened without US leadership." It is also being weakened by Annan's lack of leadership. He then goes on to agree with the critics "More broadly, Americans complain about the UN’s bureaucracy, weak decision-making, the lack of accountable modern management structures and the political divisions of the General Assembly here in New York. And my response is, “guilty on all counts”. - So just how long should the major financial support of this organization that is guilty on all counts continue before we demand changes or pull the plug?

The founding of the UN reflected the world political situation at the time. It balanced the need between a world forum and a place to make the key political decisions of the time (the Security Council) but under Annan's leadership there has been some movement on the human rights absurdities (although Annan's proposals are fundamentally flawed) and almost complete denial of a problem in the administrative roles, costs and accountability of the UN. Brown himself admits that these very real criticisms are correct. But then he blames the situation for the UN on a lack of consistent support from the major financial supporter of the current body. Has he made any credible proposals to clean up the administrative mismanagement of the body? What he referred to as (guilty on all counts) the "UN’s bureaucracy, weak decision-making, the lack of accountable modern management structures"? - of course not. Isn't that something he should be responsible for? Is America supposed to be a black check for bureaucracy, weak decision making and lack of accountable management strucutures?

Brown then uttered the most quoted offending remark " But that is not well known or understood, in part because much of the public discourse that reaches the US heartland has been largely abandoned to its loudest detractors such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. That is what I mean by “stealth” diplomacy: the UN’s role is in effect a secret in Middle America even as it is highlighted in the Middle East and other parts of the world." Does he really believe that the news media is so monolithic that the good news about the UN cannot get through to "Middle America" - what a crock. The UN was founded on fine principles - but the current administration has substituted principles for expediency that kowtows to the worst kind of petty dictators while lining the pockets of bureaucrats like Brown. In my opinion, that does not offer much of an opportunity for growth or redirection. If this were a serious speech and not a political screed, he would first have done some basic work on his own house. But I guess I do not get that one because Fox news or Rush Limbaugh limits my vision.