1 December 2006

When is a neo-con not a neo-con?

Have I become a neo-con? This disturbing though entered my mind tonight as I listened to the Heritage Foundation's president speak on UN Reform. I had expected a horned beast to grace the stage and spit Rumsfeldian riddles at the audience (in between ripping the heads off live chickens). Instead I heard a recitation of reform ideas which fit relatively snugly with my own. Have no fear, his bigger vision was way out of whack - I for one think the UN has a future beyond "allowing Vanuatu and Liechtenstein to talk to eachother". But his individual reform ideas were sensible and these rhetorical flourishes were just that.

Be tougher on human rights; Deal with issues in proportion (resolutions on Israel lack balance in number and substance); Be tougher on internal fraud, corruption, incompetence and malpractice (oil-for-food, abuse by peacekeepers etc); Avoid duplication and overlap between agencies; make sure money is carefully spent; allow some say in the budget process for large donors (top 10 countries contribute 80% of budget); improve the quality and leadership of the secretariat; allow the Secretary-General more freedom to manage staff and money; make attached agencies more accountable for spending; focus on what the UN does well.

So if this is the agenda of a neo-con - then sign me up (for the newsletter).

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

just catching up on a month and a half of old blogs from the joy of a wireless jakarta living room. this one was a classic. frankie and i chuckled heartily....