The U.N. Powerplay

In a cynical attempt to divert attention from the Oil for Food Scandal, the U.N. baited the U.S. and other Western governments to come up with more cash by labeling them “stingy.” The tsunami had just occurred and no one really knew the scope and impact of the tragedy, yet the U.N. jumped in with both feet.

The world has always risen to help out during such tragedies through participation of governments and private donations. Why was it necessary to make the accusation? Did Jan Egeland really believe that anyone would sit on the sidelines after hundreds of thousands died and millions could possible starve?

Huge amounts of money are to be given, so why does the complaining continue at U.N. and in the mainstream media? The U.N. gave itself away:

So what were Mr. Egeland and Oxfam and the New York Times talking about? What impelled them to complain about "stinginess" as the evidence of generosity was piling up all around them?

In a December 31 press release, Oxfam let the cat out of the bag: "As Colin Powell meets with [UN Secretary General] Kofi Annan to discuss how the 'core group' of the United States, Japan, Australia, and India will work with the UN, Oxfam staff in Asia warned that further chaos and duplication would result unless the UN was allowed to lead and coordinate the global response. Oxfam's East Asia Regional Director Ashvin Dayal said: 'The U.S.-led core group must come under the umbrella of the United Nations to be effective.' "

To put it yet more bluntly: The dispute over allegations of "stinginess" is not a dispute over how much should be given. It is a dispute over who will control what is given.

Sourly Kofi Annan remarked that although amounts have been pledged, often countries “don’t cough up their share.” He doesn’t mean that countries don’t aid the destitute and in disasters, he means that they are reluctant to put money into the hands of the U.N. that has abused the largesse of various countries.

Nationhood is now an anathema. Nationalism is viewed as passé and dangerous, even by many here in the United States. Their answer is the United Nations that will redistribute the world’s wealth in a more equitable way, i.e., world socialism. Do Americans really want to live socialism?

We should work with the U.N. but not in the U.N. The U.S. should take the opportunity to promote our interests in this part of the world by providing humanitarian aide because so many have been exposed to toxic anti-Americanism. Doing the right thing will not silence our critics but will leave a legacy in a part of the world in which we have had so little chance to show our positive side.