In theory, the United Nations exists as a supranational peaceloving organization. In fact, this august organization has lost effectiveness. Consider its inability to halt war. Whether in Kosovo, Somalia or Iraq, positive pronouncements carry only so little weight.

Adjucating violence is no small or easy task. Especially so, when UN members themselves are aggressive. The principle behind the establishment of the Security Council was quite simple - World War II proved that the world needs such a body. Negotiations began in 1942 to establish such a body; vested interests in the UK, USA, USSR and China saw the need for a council of equals. As equals are wont, equality needs to be asserted; hence the veto power. To this day, exercise of the veto has meant little. The UN has devolved into a corrupt bureaucracy, where little matters other than personal fief.

Peacedesiring people are interested in what position the UN will take in Iraq come June. Seems, however, that many UN nations wish that the status quo be not challenged. There is far too much money to be made in warfare, and if there is oil involved, then the moneys are many.

William Safire broke the news this week in the New York Times, that the UN is standing by, if not covering-up the richest corruption scandal in history. Safire, writing on April 19 called it a scandal with no friends, because it is in no-one's interest to admit to the depth of corruption swirling around the humanitarian efforts designed to get Iraq back on its feet.

None of this was shocking news - rumours had been circulating for months that the UN has been unable to run their aid effort. This has been going on for six years - pre-dating US-led coalition forces on ground. Known as the Iraqi oil-for-food program, the beneficiaries are not the citizens of Iraq, but those who are members of the Security Council. Permanent members France, China and Russia have nationals, whose hands are allegedly in the till.

At the turn of the year, Iraqi newspaper Al Mada revealed a list of 270 individuals suspected of being kickbackers or recipients of ill-gotten oil funds. This at a time when common Iraqis were clamouring for food and potable water. Even though oil is cast on the waters to still turmoil, there evidently was not enough of it to go around. A full one-fourth on that list on 270 revealed by Al Mada were Russian - including a former Russian ambassador to Baghdad. Is it any wonder that Vladimir Putin did not wish to see a regime change? Safire notes that by saying and doing nothing, Putin is blocking any serious investigation.

And investigation is most needed. Shocking - or perhaps not, considering the way Kofi Annan has run the UN as Secretary General - is the fact that his own son is deeply involved with the kickback scandal. When it became public that Annan's son was on n the payroll of the Swiss company that was hired to monitor the imports of food to Iraq, paid for by oil, Annan was forced to establish an independent panel.

Yet, that panel led by Paul Volcker, former U.S. Federal bank chairman proved unable to get to the bottom of things. Volcker asked for a Security Council resolution, which, as Safire noted "would presumably empower his panel to take sworn testimony and gain access to the U.N.'s corrupt contracts". Those very contracts enabled Saddam Hussein to build lavish palaces instead of feeding his people -, as was the intent of the program.

The entire situation is tawdry, because the US State Department is so eager for U.N. assistance in Iraq, wishing for the U.N to take over an unhealthy situation, that they were allegedly squashing news of U.N ineptitude.

In an understatement, Safire writes that "outrage which drives scandal is selective." The entrenched in power - be that in the UN or the high levels of the American corridors - have little appetite to have this scandal exposed fully.

The cynics are having a field day, yet there are far too few of them. A telling detail was to be found in an Los Angeles Times article that Safire cites, written by the French Ambassador under the title "Oil-for-food-lies". Apparently, we need to blame only the conservative media, because all the food-for-oil contracts were circulated to the US and Britain. If so, then why are the lists not being made public? Those veto again, one thinks.

The Putin led Russian return to authoritarian practices means that at least from Moscow no effort will be taken to help in the search for truth.

Money is to be made in oil, consider only how fast Russian oligarchs made their billions after the collapse of the Soviet system. And, as always, when money talks, the truth is hardly heard.

Considering that the UN is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy - the US is only most obvious for withholding contributions - perhaps the leaders on the Security Council should explore funneling money to where it might make a difference. Safire notes that the American General Accounting Office figures are staggering - some $5 billion gone to fraudulent use, not to mention another $5 billion more in smuggled oil.

If there is a lesson in all this, it is that vested interests - American, French, Russian, Chinese and British, still rule the world. The UN is a paper tiger; all of the lofty idealism behind its establishment means little when oligarchs see fortune where others intend to see food.

The partial effectiveness of the United Nations - if only as figurehead - need not be dismissed. However, placing total faith in an organization unable to run programs such as this food-for-oil fiasco leaves at least this writer dubious of the planned success of the UN takeover of any occupied country, much less Iraq, where foreign powers have long made their fortunes.

Märkmed: