From the LA Times:
Under intense pressure from the United States, U.N. members agreed Friday that the world body would receive half of its budget for 2006 until it could show that its management had become more accountable and streamlined.
If U.N. members show progress on key reforms by June, the $950-million cap will be removed, and the U.N. will receive the rest of its nearly $2 billion in dues from member nations.
In an effort to keep momentum behind lofty pledges of reform made at a September summit, the United States had linked approval of the budget to change. The move was fiercely opposed by developing countries, leading to a marathon negotiation that threatened to scuttle the entire $3.8-billion 2006-08 budget.
Among management reforms that the 191-member General Assembly must approve are new international accounting standards, buyout plans for employees, a review of programs older than 5 years and a strengthened internal watchdog office.
Another major reform victory for the US under its “controversial” UN ambassador, a recess appointee that the Democrats fought bitterly against. Just as they are now fighting bitterly against the President’s ability to authorize legal programs in secret meant to defend us against terrorist attacks.
Reached for comment, John Bolton’s straight-talking mustache, “Regis,” shrugged, lit himself up a $3 cigar, and noted in passing that he hadn’t done anything that Peter Lawford wouldn’t have done—had Peter Lawford been UN ambassador, and not a Hollywood playboy who liked to slug scotch with Frank and Deano, and bed down broads three at time.
(h/t Say Anything)
This is good news. Now if Pork Busters could just have the same impact upon congress….
Well, okay, fine…if that’s what he said. But I just don’t think Peter Lawford had the panache that John Bolton does.
Sorry, but I’m not buyin’ Regis’ modesty.
George Voinovich gently weeps.
Hey, don’t underestimate the difficulty of bedding down broads three at a time.
It’s trickier than you might think.
sw: season. Season’s Greetings to one and all.
I actually worked, for my dad’s then-published newspaper there, at the UN for a few short stints. It is indeed a very bureaucratically hidebound place, and the fact that, at the top, the Secretariat has to answer to almost 200 countries (who in turn have much say about various aspects of the functioning of the organization, eg in their home countries), means that it can almost never be a model of efficiency.
Yet the contradiction between the US, with a budget deficit larger by an order of magnitude than the overall budget of the UN, and Repork up the wazoo, excoriating the UN for its inefficiency is astounding. There are some governments in Europe, most notably in Scandinavia, who (little to the notice of the RW due to their large “welfare states”) run fairly efficiently, yet they are the most generous in international aid and much less critical of the UN.
I might comment a little on the Oil-for-Food (OFF) program scandal, when it comes up, but for now I don’t understand why the word controversial referring to Bolton needs to be in “” marks. He certainly is controversial, a fact that even his admirers would have to acknowledge.
I worked at the UN for a short time as an assistant, and it is every bit as inefficient and corrupt as they claim. If Bolton can do any good, I salute the man. Frankly I doubt if any force in the universe could redeem that bastion of vice and deceit.
As a public service, I present “Shorter Cloudy”:
“Hey, they can’t be efficient, they’re wogs.”
Hmmmmm.
America has a population of 330 million. The UN has a staff that numbers in the thousands. If America were as inefficient and corrupt as the UN on a per capita basis we’d have a national debt that exceeded the entire value of the planet.
But that wouldn’t fit into your scheme of things so go right ahead and ignore it like you have already done in your America-bashing.
Really? Norway depends heavily on the North Sea oil revenues and isn’t exactly a model of efficiency in governance. Sweden is better, but so what? As for the nonsense about generosity, that’s only if you compare on a per capita basis and then *specifically* exclude private donations.
And I’m frankly uncertain of that as the amount of aid given for the Tsunami, earthquakes and other disasters have been very generous. TO no avail of course since most of it’s been stolen, mis-spent or “lost”.
So all you’ve proven is that the Swedish government is generous. Yeah. You go wave that around like a victory flag while I ignore you.
Yeah you do that. Meanwhile we’re going to stay glued to our monitors just in case you want to grace us with your blather.
Accountability at the United Nations? An international organization that has operated on the du jure basis that it has, without qualifications, the moral ascendency to lead us poor benighted Americans? Let it not be so!
Here’s a clue for you. The UN is the most useless bunch of bastards on the planet and a large portion of the American public would love to see them frogmarched to JFK airport and forcibly put on the first plane to Brussels. And then have the UN building bulldozed into the sea.
Bolton is only contraversial to the left. To us on the right he’s as normal as vanilla.
Stormy, I’m wish you. Even with 100 Boltons, you wouldn’t chip the paint until you through out the autocracies, kleptocracies, and apparatniks. In a word, at least half of the place.
Better to gut all but a few divisions and start over.
*with
On the other hand, 100 copies of Regis, and you might be onto somethings.
I thought Regis was into bedding women three at a time…
TW: The UN had better straighten up or else
Who’da thunk calling John Bolton “controversial” would be “controversial”?
I seriously think many of the lefties that visit here exist just to argue. Anything. Doesn’t matter what the topic is. Or the subject. All they can do is be contrarian. Can’t help themselves, I don’t think.
Me: “The sky is blue.”
Lefty: “Blue is a construct. The Native Americans who we slaughtered had no word for ‘blue.’ Plus, I prefer ‘azure.’ And BUSH LIED.”
Please, drink some egg nog, lefties. Spiked. Laugh a little. It’s CHRISTMAS, for CHRISSAKES! Try some fucking CHEER!
Hey Jeff
Merry Christmas, it’s been great reading your blog, the best for you and your family now and in the new year.
TW “moment” BUSH LIED (just a lefty moment having nothing to do with the season)
Cloudy’s no doubt right: it’s the demands of answering to 200 different countries that causes the UN to cover up for child slavery/prostitution rings run by their “peacekeepers” and “relief” efforts.
Repork up the wazoo
Because absolutely no pork ends up, or has ever ended up, in Democrat districts or states, right?
BECAUSE OF THE BENJAMINS!
Sure, drink that EGG nog! Never mind some poor chicken, weeping for her lost family, how merry is her Christmas gonna be you drunken hedonists?
CHICKENGENOCIDEHAWKS!!!!
Cloudy said, “It is indeed a very bureaucratically hidebound place…”
Bravo! “Hidebound” is such a great word, rich in texture and linguistic imagery. Just jike “gobsmacked.”
We don’t use hidebound and gobsmacked enough these days. Perhaps 2006 will see a resurgance of these fine, fine words.
Well done, Cloudy.
Stormy and Ed both condemn the UN from first hand experience.
Ed had lots to say but most to the point was…
With some pride I would like to second Ed’s suggestion of shipping the most stubborn and undemocratic members back home, but we’ll use the building to house the new UDN. Stands for United Democratic Nations.
There will be fewer members with sincere leanings towards Democracy and less propensity to obstruct progress.
This will return nations to efficient debate and more positive actions. See Wikipedia.org for United Democratic Nations and notice the author’s name. TG
But would the UDN include Russia, France, Germany and China?
And I see where some Sunni’s are protesting the election. Now we know what Joe Biden was doing over there. Maybe not so hot on promoting democracy, but a genius at promoting “Dem”ocracy…
What does “cost cutting” mean to the U.N., anyway?
I remember the U.N. submitted a proposal for renovating the U.N. headquarters, and it was about $1.2 billion. When New York realtors pointed out that the cost was way out of line, Kofi Annan created a committee to reduce the estimated cost. Six weeks later, the committee emerged and announced that the cost would now be $1.9 billion. So they cut the cost from $1.2 billion to $1.9 billion.
This would indicate the U.N.’s perception of financial reform and accountability.
Now, now. It’s a perfectly good building. Let’s use it for a new World Trade Center.
TW: “son”. Q: What did the mother buffalo say to her offspring as he left the herd? A: “‘bye, son”
Hmm, yes, now that you mention it the budget deficit really doesn’t have anything at all to do with efficiency, does it?
Maybe we should flush the whole UN idea, and go back to the concepts of trade and defense treaties with our friends, pressure on our enemies, and a wary eye on those in between. If other countries want to gather in nattering groups, fine. Don’t we have better things to do?
TW: ‘could’. It could have been something good, but it isn’t.
Now let’s see how good Bolton really is, and see if he can get a six-month cap on the UN, period…
I second Robert’s comment. When the fund for that stupid Alaska bridge was threatened, and Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) stood up to denounce it, wanna guess who supported him, cloudy?
Senator Patty Murray (D-WA).
So if you’re going to be biased, perhaps you can be more intelligent about it, eh?
And Merry Christmas, by the way. I hope you didn’t have an argument over the eggnog.
Merry Christmas, Jeff!
NEW YORK, Dec. 23 (UPI)  Up to about a third of the $590 million U.N. fund spent for the Indian Ocean tsunami relief may have gone to pay for overhead.
The Financial Times says its two-month investigation showed the money appears to have been spent on administration, staff and related costs. The $590 million was part of the United Nation’s $1.1 billion disaster flash appeal.
The newspaper also found several U.N. agencies continue to refuse to disclose details of their relief expenditure in spite of earlier pledges of transparency by senior officials.
That would be the same UN that was criticizing US efforts to bring relief to the region in the days following the tsunami while the UN was still waiting in their offices for their Land Rovers to be air transported to Banda Aceh before showing up.
And the same UN that wanted US and Aussie troops, then the only active groups providing aid in Bande Aceh, to wear UN uniforms so as to “not scare the locals”. I interpreted that as “so the UN looks like it’s doing something.”