I am amazed that as Saddam Hussein statues were toppled all over Iraq last week, all my fellow Europeans could talk about was the importance of U.N. rule in the country, and the danger of a long-term American occupation. They’ve got it backward. Wherever the United Nations goes, it tends to stay forever, and to perpetuate problems. It’s been in Bosnia for eight years now, in Kosovo and East Timor for four, in the Palestinian territories since'48. In Gaza the U.N. agency running the refugee camps is the main purveyor of jobs. I am a refugee’s son myself: my father fled the territories that Italy lost to Yugoslavia in 1945. After a few months all 350,000 refugees had found jobs, houses, new lives. There was no U.N. presence, which was perhaps their good fortune.
Today there is no sign that the United Nations will leave Bosnia or Kosovo. No solution for Cyprus after almost 30 years. Nevertheless, “U.N.” has become a magic phrase, the last redoubt for pacifists. Even my paper–the largest Italian weekly, normally quiet and middle-of-the-road–has turned pacifist: for Christmas it published an article by a Catholic bishop against the war, and as counterbalance an article by a former communist against the war.
I was once a pacifist demonstrator myself, fighting the placement of U.S. nuclear cruise missiles in Sicily. But now I don’t mind anybody getting rid of Saddam, by any means necessary. We Italians should know: Rome invented the word “dictator,” the first modern dictator was Italian (Adolf Hitler was a pupil of Benito Mussolini) and even Silvio Berlusconi, our current premier, has been called by his adversaries the model of the postmodern media dictator. Nevertheless, Europeans don’t care anymore about dictators (or freedom). They rave about peace. They crave the United Nations.
Now, pardon my bluntness, but why should we condemn the poor Iraqis to be governed by lazy and incompetent bureaucrats? It’s no secret that the United Nations has more tolerance than most for petty despots: Libya currently holds the presidency of the U.N. Human Rights Commission. The U.N. bureaucracy is a Gogolian monster with 65,000 employees and a budget of $2.6 billion a year. For each problem the United Nations has set up a special agency, and this week in Vienna the UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime–the longer the name, the more wasteful the body) is discussing how the war on drugs is going. It’s a disaster, actually: halfway through a 10-year effort to eradicate drug cultivation, production has soared. Is the agency closing down because of this failure? No, it’s asking for new funds.
The system is corrupt. When I give money for the hungry, I send it directly to the missionaries instead of UNICEF or the World Food Program or anyone else whose first-class air-travel budget could feed tens of thousands. UNESCO is a successful Paris job-creation program for sociologists and intellectuals, famous for overhead expenses that eat up as much as 80 percent of some programs. Officials of the Human Rights Commission have been sent home for allegedly trafficking women and young girls for prostitution in Bosnia. At the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (yearly budget: $740 million), four officials have been arrested for smuggling refugees. The U.N. apparatus has grown so much that in 1994 a new Office for Internal Oversight Services was established to keep track of everyone. It promptly hired 180 more people, at an extra cost of $18 million a year.
Has the United Nations really proved its competence in dealing with Iraq? Past experience says no: not only did the Oil-for-Food Program allow Saddam and his cronies to pocket large sums, but an audit found the program had overpaid $1 million for services. U.N. officers are well paid: six-digit tax-free salaries in dollars, plus innumerable allowances. Most of them are decent people, frustrated by their own red tape. But why on earth should they go to Baghdad? Let them play tennis elsewhere.
