I attended the Conference Board's annual dinner (and meeting, which was a side show the speed of which would put a Boro Park Wednesday shacharit service to shame) last night, with Paul Volcker as the speaker. Based on his findings in the independent inquiry on the oil for food program, he called for reforms of the United Nations but pointed out it wasn't going to be a "cake walk."
The press was on hand, wasting their chances on stupid questions. For example, whether Volcker had any comment about the French company Total given his involvement with the company (someone's trying to say that Volcker himself has a conflict of interest). Turns out - and this should be easy for anyone to figure out - Volcker advised a Canadian company at one point that sold a Belgian subsidiary to Total. Then someone said that someone in India wants to sue Volcker and the UN. For what, it wasn't clear.
Anyway, the questions not asked (and I just didn't have the guts to raise my hand) were:
- Is it even conceivable that the UN - with a membership that consists primarily of more or less corrupt regimes - can aspire to the highest common denominator in its ethical dealings?
- To what extent was the corruption due to UN officials being corrupt vs. external, inherently corrupt entities being opportunistic while the UN stood by?
- Who at the UN really gives a shit about the findings? My guess is most people just want it to go away.
- Is the real problem that the UN's ambitions are getting in the way of getting important, but smaller things done?
- Has the Bush administration's policy vis a vis the UN reduced the ability of the US to effect change within the UN?
- Do you find that there is a perception gap about the magnitude of this problem among UN members?
Comments