Clare Short is whinging that George Bush is undermining the UN by setting up an aid coalition for the tsunami victims. (Note that the coalition is much of the Anglosphere plus Japan...)

She missed her calling. She should have been in standup comedy:

“I think this initiative from America to set up four countries claiming to coordinate sounds like yet another attempt to undermine the UN when it is the best system we have got and the one that needs building up,” she said.

“Only really the UN can do that job,” she told BBC Radio Four’s PM programme.

“It is the only body that has the moral authority."

I've got 3 words for Clare Short-of-Brains: Oil for Palaces.

(Actually, I have more words, but this is a family blog.)

She can stick it up her (insert oriface of choice here).

The overhead this time will be at least 90% going the UN way. The corrupt must have a killing before they are booted out, or the UN collapses on its own.

"It is the only body that has the moral authority."

I don't know about moral authority, but if I put on my thinking cap I see that the problem will soon be not that there is not enough aid, but that there will be a lack of coordination for the aid that is coming in.

Some villages or regions will have a surplus of aid, while 10 kms away, people will be starving, and no one knows about it. That kind of thing.

Guees who are the current kings-of-the-hill when it comes to coordination, logistics and 'just getting it done'. It ain't the UN, baby.

Question:

Is Clare Short wrong because the US is not seeking to undermine the UN or because the UN deserves to be undermined? If we want the US to "get out" of the UN, fine. Propose it in Congress, get the votes, and then just do it.

But Rand's post and the comments seem to say:

(a) We aren't undermining the UN; but

(b) We should be undermining the UN.

Which is it?

Bill, It's (c) ignoring the U.N. so the aid and money goes to the victims.

I think tthe US should go through the UN only if the UN publicly promises no child molesting or rape in this humanitarian effort.

And let us not forget Bill Clinton, from afar, again bad-mouthing the United States for not doing enough.

Uh, how much has he given?

I read the whole piece, and it seemed almost like a Scott Ott paridy. The poor woman keeps contradicting herself.

Bill... I think at face value, Clare Short is absolutely right about disasters like this being a useful role for the UN. I would rather know that for all we pay to the UN, that they spent their money on efforts like what is needed now in South Asia.

Unfortunately, I have only read about two things regarding the UN and the tsunami. One claiming the US as stingy, when at the time it was the single largest donor. Now another blaming the US in undermining the UN, because the US was enlisting support.

Bill, can you explain what utility those comments by the UN have for the people in South Asia?

In my opinion, this would be akin to the President claiming that the American Red Cross should get out of the way and let FEMA handle it.

These comments only demonstrate (as if more demonstration were needed) that US has become a totally self-serving organization, interested only in its own power and perpetuation, and hopping mad because US makes it irrelevant whenever it suits us.

If Bush is "undermining" the UN, more power to him. The UN is nothing but an corrupt organization of third-world kleptocrats. It has outlived its usefulness.

I think the UN leadership deserves the majority of blame for undermining that institution. They have taken the organization's credibility down with their own.

UPDATE Jan 8: The UN is STILL trying to get its act together. No people on the ground, no supplies, no transport vehicles... just mouthy, critical, self-important chumps riding over the devastation and asking "Where are the people?"

Don't know, Kofi, but the AMERICANS are there, because they have the moral authority of being American, un-tainted by collaboration w/the UN!