Expensive Idealism

 

The UN has been in the news today, mainly due to Kofi Annan's controversial comments about Iraq (essentially to the effect that the Iraqis were better off in the days of the dictatorship) but also due to John Bolton's decision to quit his post.

Kofi Annan's personal views are not particularly surprising, as his political position is well-known. Likewise, the failure of the US to develop a coherent and effective policy with regard to the UN over the years, is nothing new. What never ceases to amaze me, however, is that an organization that gives such a poor return on investment in its political, security and development dimensions, continues to survive largely unquestioned by most of its members.

Tiny Malta, for example, spends something in the region of three million US Dollars per annum in membership fees and in order to maintain its three diplomatic missions to the UN and its agencies (New York, Geneva and Vienna). This does not include the resources spent on the UN and its agencies at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Head Office in Valletta (and in two other missions - in Strasbourg and Rome - that combine UN-related work with other bilateral or multilateral duties) or the additional costs of the annual participation in the UN General Assembly (involving visits to New York by the Minister and usually also the Prime Minister, together with their retinues), as well as expenditure by other Ministries, including the costs of participation in UN-related meetings by non-MFA officials. The above figure also excludes the fact that the Government has an unknown sum of money tied up in the (undoubtedly very expensive) properties it owns in New York and which house the Permanent Representation and the Permanent Representative himself (the rent on which would probably amount to something in the region of half a million dollars). All these are publicly known facts, and most of them can be found on the Foreign Ministry's budgetary estimates for 2007.

The returns we are getting on this annual investment are not very clear to me. Most of those involved in this process usually tend to argue that no tangible 'short-term' gains can be expected, but that the world is being made better for our children anyway. I personally fail to see how this is the case. The UN's record on improving security is virtually non-existent. Few wars have been stopped or prevented by the UN itself (as opposed to the great powers striking deals in the context of the Security Council or outside it, which is something that they have been doing since long before the UN came into existence). I do not see very impressive results in the field of development either. A big part of the UN's development budget is consumed by the administration itself. I know of no country that has received a significant boost to its development thanks to the UN. I also know of few countries that have been saved from dictatorship or genocide by the organization. On the contrary, a significant number of bloody dictators and 'genocidaires' have, over the years, participated in, and been legitimized by, the UN. The UN's idea of defending human rights is the Human Rights Council (little better than its predecessor, the notorious Commission on Human Rights), which is dominated by those countries that have most to fear from criticism on that subject and which obviously block any initiatives in their own regard, thus rendering it completely pointless.

I could imagine a more rational UN that actually works. One that refuses to accept participation by non-elected governments. One that expels members when they do not respect the human rights of their citizens. One that does not give a microstate like Malta exactly the same voting power as India, with its 1 billion plus citizens. Until this happens, I do not see how the organization can be of much use to the world. I can think of much better uses for our money.