US, Australia do the work, UN takes the credit

Here's a good follow-up article:

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2005/01/swine-before-pearls-un-plan-to-provide.html

Here's a good follow-up article:

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2005/01/swine-before-pearls-un-plan-to-provide.html

And more:

http://timblair.net/comments.php?id=113_0_1_0_C

 

It's kind of ironic how much outrage there is when countries like the US or Australia decide to not bother with the charade of UN management for this kind of charity work. After all, it's usually Americans and other major aid givers who run the humanitarian departments and distribute the aid; I guess if they want to take the glory away from the UN and global cooperation then it's up to them.

The UN, once again, seems to have mastered giving the appearance of doing a lot of work while doing very little. Instead, they take credit for the work of others. Perhaps they should look into getting into game publishing...

Now now. That's unfair. Game publishers aren't nearly as inefficient and impotent as the UN! They actually get their product where they're supposed to be!

Reading these though, it makes me applaud how the US and other nations have decided to do the aid their own way.

Could this be the beginning of a new Un? one with the states aussies and japan leading the way??? would be nice to see how much the present un provides with 40% of the dues gone {us and japan }. and with 85% of the fighting force , men machines weapons gone {the us}

The US doesn't pay its dues - although it does tend to ignore several million dollars worth of parking fines and rent, so possibly it evens out. I think the last time the US paid its dues in full was in the early 90s, although I could be wrong. And I hope there isn't a world body which is led by Australia. Noone's going to take the slightest bit of interest in it.

And why would the world take less notice of Australia than any other country, I find it strange that the US administration believes that Australia is worthwhile friend. I do not believe you have to be big to be noticed, just getting on with the job. Interestingly it was Australia that led the talks which finally finished the racist structure of South Africa, or the fact that the US puts some much importance on taking australia with whenever it has a job to do, just because we don't have the loud voice of many others , does not mean we do not make a considerable contribution to the world at large, and are capable of leading, as for the theme that started this blog, I agree that all to often countries like Australia and the US are out in the trenches working solving problems , helping etc, way before the pronouncements of the UN, however I really don't care what the UN says , just that people have rallied quickly to help. Interestinly Australia for such a small country/economy is generally one of the first to help and gives a lot to aid, in the way of cash and support, after all we had people in the air on their way to asia within hours, not days and with no fanfare, because that is the Australian Way, no noise , just a determination to get in and help. Quiet Achievers, but achievers all the same.

Charity is Charity. While governments of the countries that were rampaged are sure to lend a note of thanks to those who contribute aid, do you really think that the Kenyan fisherman, Indonesian villagers, and coastal Thai citizens really care 'who' gives 'what' and 'how much'? The truth of the matter is that we need to help keep the suffering to a minimum if we believe in humanity, compassion, and caring. There should be only one name ultimately attached to the giving: "The World". Those who have to attach a banner on their donations aren't practicing charity, they are advertising, and are wanting something in return - usually more than just recognition.

Charity is Charity. While governments of the countries that were rampaged are sure to lend a note of thanks to those who contribute aid, do you really think that the Kenyan fisherman, Indonesian villagers, and coastal Thai citizens really care 'who' gives 'what' and 'how much'? The truth of the matter is that we need to help keep the suffering to a minimum if we believe in humanity, compassion, and caring. There should be only one name ultimately attached to the giving: "The World". Those who have to attach a banner on their donations aren't practicing charity, they are advertising, and are wanting something in return - usually more than just recognition.

Perhaps, but should the US and Australia allow the UN to take for their work? No matter how humble one should be, I don't think anybody, even the United Nations, should take credit for something it didn't do.

You're way behind on the news, the has been paying its dues for some years now. It suspended payment in the early 90s to pressure the UN to clean up its act. Which it did until the US started paying again. I think it's time to not pay again.

is giving a matter of who gets credit?

Just wondering...

Yeah. If you found out that the man you thought had helped you out of bad times weren't really the person who helped you? Would you get angry? I would, since actual person had a thankless help.

This hurts the possibility of future help from the guy who got 'burned' by the lack of thanks.

Nice to see people even use natural disasters as another excuse for UN bashing. Is no loss of human life sacred that people try to use it for political purposes?

You've picked the wrong subject though. The UN has a very strong record in disaster relief having coordinated and organised the relief effort in countless humanitarian disasters. The most recent major disaster was the Iran earthquake where the UN has done excellent work. The UN is a coordin ating body and much of the aid that countries have offered will be given to charities who will work with the UN to spend this money where it is needed.

Lets stop the political fighting and support ALL relief efforts whether by individual countries, charities or the UN. Lets stop with the we contributed more than you mentality.

Paul.

So, there's nothing wrong with taking credit for something they didn't do? Does that mean that nobody will complain when we give all the credit to everything good in the world to the US, even if it involved others, or does it only apply to the UN?