UNlikely
Does anyone actually think Benon Sevan, Joseph Stephanides or anyone else will be held accountable for oil-for-food? Stephanides is being suspended with pay (Sevan is retired), their pensions "can't be touched" regardless, and this is apparently the beginning of a "disciplinary process" that will most likely take ages, kill a few dozen forests and end with no hard feelings. (Remember this?)
One of the purposes the UN ostensibly serves in developing countries, especially failed states, is that it projects an example of functional governance -- transparency, merit-based advancement, accountability, etc. For all their failings, I think field-based projects very often do this. To get paid for being good at what you do -- or fired for not being so good at it -- can be, as far as I've seen, a new and potentially formative concept for someone raised in a system based on nepotism and graft. Which is why it's so destructive when even the weather people can't keep their checks straight, and war criminals end up with backpay.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Not to defend the UN, which I hate, but your argument applies as much if not more to the US in Iraq. Funny you didn't mention that.
http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?ID=36737
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/02/08/fraud-and-corruption-/
One of the purposes the UN ostensibly serves in developing countries, especially failed states, is that it projects an example of functional governance -- transparency, merit-based advancement, accountability, etc.
Honestly, as Libertarians you should be able to recognize that *none* of those are required for a successful state. The United States, whether you like it or not, is not transparent, merit-based, nor accountable -- at least not according to 95% of what I read on this site every week. Why should anyone expect anything more from the UN?
What Mike and MB said...and the sad truth is, the US is probably the most transparent member state of the UN.
Kerry, I'm sorry, but I just can't wrap my mind around the idea that the UN has ever served as an example of "getting paid for being good at what you do -- or fired for not being so good at it" and a counterexample of a system based on nepotism and graft.
Nope, no nepotism at the UN. Kojo Annan just happened to be the right man for his job.