Toward a System of Global Management
Mike Treder
2005-04-27 00:00:00
URL

Along these lines, it's
interesting to read this opinion
about the U.N.:



The United Nations is not a
popularly elected world
government; it isn't even a
collection of well-meaning
people who just want peace. It
is a group of different agencies
with different agendas, some of
which are relatively effective
and some of which are
ineffective or even dangerous.
The United Nations provides the
relief workers who are
coordinating international aid
for tsunami victims, and people
delivering aid and democracy
assistance in Afghanistan. The
U.N. umbrella includes critical
agencies such as the World
Health Organization, whose work
to prevent another flu pandemic
could save millions of lives.

That's columnist


Anne Applebaum
writing in
the Washington Post. She
also says:



Infamously, the United Nations
has lately been implicated in a
vast and tangled scandal, the
oil-for-food scam. It was not
the only culprit -- dozens of
governments, including ours,
knew of, or even cooperated
with, smuggling in Iraq -- but
unfortunately this corruption is
part of a larger pattern.
Financial scandals plagued U.N.
operations in Cambodia.
Trafficking scandals plagued
U.N. operations in Kosovo. What
the world body spends on
pointless conferences and
unnecessary publications would
feed many, many children in
Africa.

I especially like this part:



But if the United Nations isn't
good in and of itself, neither
is it evil. It is only as good
or bad as its employees, all
political appointees whose
activities are, by ordinary
government or business
standards, subjected to
shockingly little oversight.
Unlike, say, the U.S. civil
service, or the Japanese
bureaucracy, the U.N.
bureaucracy is not beholden to a
democratic government or even a
sovereign government. There is
no electorate that can toss the
Libyans out of the human rights
commissioner's chair, no
judicial system that can try
corrupt officials. . .

The trouble with many U.N.
defenders is that they refuse to
see this fundamental problem,
and demand a constantly
expanding role for the United
Nations without explaining how
its lack of democratic
accountability is to be
addressed. The trouble with many
U.N. detractors, in Congress and
elsewhere, is that they see the
corruption and nothing else. But
there is a role for U.N.
institutions -- in Afghanistan,
or in international health -- as
long as that role is limited in
time and cost.



If a consensus arises in favor of
some system of global MM management,
then either an existing organization
will have to be charged with that
duty, or an entirely new body will
need to be created. CRN has been


unable to identify
any
existing institution presently
capable of performing this critical
function. We think something new
will be needed, although


we can't say for sure yet

how -- or even whether -- this can
be accomplished. If it cannot, we
fear the


worst
.


You may or not agree with Ms.
Applebaum's


final conclusion
, but her
objective appraisal of the U.N.'s
usefulness and limitations does
illuminate the challenges and
pitfalls of developing a wholly new
organization.


My point here is not to defend
the U.N. but to show that we might
have to start somewhere.
Learning how the U.N. works (or
doesn't work), and what its
strengths and flaws are, could help
in deciding what sort of
pan-national administrative
structure would suffice to ensure
safe, responsible development and
use of advanced nanotechnology.