Point taken Col – the UN is far less than ideal and has certainly fallen way short of addressing its objectives. However, we can say that about practically any big complex organisation. The only ones that come anywhere near addressing their objectives seem to be those with profit-motives whose objectives are to maximise their profit!

But problems within the UN need to be put into perspective with problems in the manner in which various organisations lobby for and utilise funding, and the way governments, businesses and private citizens direct funding/donations. There are problems everywhere which, relatively speaking, are no smaller than those in the UN. Hopefully UN management would get rid of a lot of them.

A couple of big problems:

Aggressive organisations succeed, but they are correlated to high expenditure on advertising and/or high profits.

Organisations dealing with current tragedies succeed in procuring more funding than those dealing with long-term causal factors and background improvements that are out of the media spotlight. In short, the whole aid scenario is far too reactive and needs to become a million times more proactive.

This is why we need it to be managed under the auspices of a holistic international organisation.

This might actually mean that Australian aid would be largely redirected into more meaningful projects instead of being, to a significant extent, geared towards trade [see OLO article ‘Helping others to help ourselves’, Tim O’Connor 30/12/05].

Yeah, I know I’m being idealistic, which is something I should have stopped doing by now, 20 years after my greenie awakenings. But hey, it’s nice to be idealistic instead of cynical now and then. They are the only two options in this world, aren’t they? (woops, suppress that cynicism Ludwig, you’re in ‘idealism’ mode)

Oh schizers I’m losing track of my threads (or losing the threads of my sanity). This IS Tim O’Connor’s thread!! O well, I’m not surprised. Rather surprised that this is the first time it has happened actually.

Anyway, I’ll continue as though my brain is still fully functional…

Col I don’t think governments are incapable of compassion. They can exercise calculated compassion, as can any of us. In fact, uncalculated, purely emotive compassion is a bit unfortunate. Many aid organisations play on this, with the best of intentions of course. But it means that a great deal of funding goes into highly emotive current crises and far too little goes into the unemotive and somewhat mundane preventative measures.

You write; “We are approaching a dilemma – should some of the current federal budget surplus be 1. ploughed into extra aid programs? or 2. returned to tax payers as reduced taxes? I opt for 2 – then those who want to make the "philanthropic decision”, can decide which non-government aid program they are going to align with and pass on the hip-pocket benefit of reduced taxes to.”

I opt for 1. I think that we should be more highly taxed than we are, with a resultant improvement in domestic services and international aid. We should require by law that our government put at least 0.7% of our GDP into real international aid, as per the UN recommendation.

The trouble with 2 is that very little of any tax reduction would go towards aid programs. Most people would choose not to make a philanthropic decision to donate any of it to international aid programs, and the little bit that does get sent would largely go towards emotive causes.

Hi Ludwig

Agree with your view re UN being “lobbied” by powerful influences and would note those influences invariably sow the seeds of corruption.
However, I cannot see large corruption being any better than small corruption and “UN management” has become the origin of the corruption and so is not going to get rid of itself.

Whilst recognising your points re aggressive lobbying and “glamour” causes, what you are asking for is the “re-engineering” of peoples thought processes, an impossible goal.

Suggesting “we need to be managed” – I strongly disagree. I need and Australia too to manage our circumstances, I do not need and would strongly resist being “managed” by any international organisation, regardless of how “holistic” it might be.

There is Nothing wrong with “idealism” (without it, nothing). An appreciation of “Pragmatism” is an equally valuable quality, to be mixed with “Idealism” for best overall results.

Regarding compassion, I stand by my assertion. Your term “calculated compassion” is an oxymoron.
Again, “pragmatism” helps to balance “emotive expectations and promotions”.

Your elective in choosing Option 1.
This is the crux of our difference of view.

I would only opt for 2.

I see “government” and paid bureaucrats as being no better than me at managing the resources they collect, on my behalf and will invariably decide differently to me how those resources should be best distributed, in your and my name.

Your comment “Most people would choose not to make a philanthropic decision to donate any of it to international aid programs”.

Your suggestion ignores the “philanthropic” leanings and activities of millions of private individuals from Rotary and Lions club members and those who fill the coin collector tins to those who pursue grander endeavours of their own volition.

”Government” is manned by politicians and bureaucrats. Despite often thinking the contrary, I am reliably informed, Politicians and Bureaucrats are “people” and will thus, do no better a job of “philanthropic distribution” than the private individuals from whom they extort the taxes to be deployed into “international aid”.

I look forward to your response.

Col, you have given me so much to respond to.

You wrote; “I cannot see large corruption being any better than small corruption and ‘UN management’ has become the origin of the corruption and so is not going to get rid of itself.”

The world is watching the UN very closely, scrutinising just about everything. The UN has to be highly accountable to its member nations for its actions. Much less accountability exists for many small organisations. Any corruption within the UN would have to be pretty minimal, or else very well planned and concealed. Yes, powerful influences can sow the seeds of corruption, but they can also prevent or minimise it.

Even with a considerable level of inefficiency and perhaps some outright corruption, UN management would be better than a hodge-podge of different organisations with largely uncoordinated and reactive agendas, because it would surely make the whole aid scenario much more proactive and holistic, which are concerns of the highest order.

This is the same principle as government control of the economy versus market-force control. If too much power is vested in the business sector, all sorts of problems will result due to the overriding profit motive, immediacy of competition, tragedy of the commons and lack of long-term vision (which is exactly what is happening because governments are not fulfilling their basic regulatory role). Regulation is one of the primary responsibilities of governments. Similarly, the UN should be the world aid regulatory body, thus bringing a greater sense of balance, a better distribution of funds and more emphasis on crisis-prevention and sustainability.

Idealistic? Absolutely. But pragmatic as well.

We do have a fundamental disagreement on the need for management, don’t we.

more below

I cannot see what you object to regarding “calculated compassion”. Again, it is a form of management, practiced by individuals, organisations, companies and governments, as to how much of their money, time and/or resources they are going to put towards compassionate concerns.

The advantage with option 1 is that the majority of aid money would be distributed according to my above model, where in option 2, advertising power in combination with immediate crises (your ‘glamour’ causes) would mean that the vast majority of funding would NOT go into background preventative measures and promotion of sustainability. It means that it would go towards treating the symptoms rather than the causes, or at least the ratio of expenditure on these would be far too skewed towards the former (as it is now). This is the really significant point here, as it is with UN management.

“Your suggestion ignores the “philanthropic” leanings and activities of millions of private individuals…”

Not at all. Many people contribute to all sorts of worthy organisations, but most don’t. The average expenditure is tiny. This is why we need our aid to be part of the tax system. People would generally be much happier if a couple of percent of their taxes went towards genuine international aid, than they would be paying the equivalent in a voluntary capacity. Even if they received tax breaks, with a strong recommendation that a significant portion of that saving go towards some worthy aid project, how many people do you think would follow the recommendation? Not many. The same principle applies with tax itself; if people had the choice as to how much tax they paid, how much do you think they’d pay, despite knowing about all the essential services that those taxes support?

Your last paragraph is very revealing. You really do harbour some very strong negative views about government. To blanketly condemn all politicians and bureaucrats and to say that they “extort” taxes off us is really unfortunate. Now I am beginning to understand why you are so strongly against management.

Col, back from a break and sorry to be so late in responding. In what way were my comments about choice derisive (not, as you put it, 'derisory', which means 'insultingly small', rather like Australian aid)? I'm thoroughly in favour of choice, as long as it's informed. Indeed, my question to you was about informed choice. Did Mrs Thatcher go to the electorate announcing her intent to change souls? No, she talked about economics. Would she have been elected if she'd said she aimed to change souls? Unlikely. Then did she give those who voted for her an informed choice? Not from the sound of it.

And I'm very much on your side on the question of priests. I just don't think a Tory politician is an appropriate spiritual advisor either. Or any other politician for that matter.