Fair and Balanced

The Economist, May 6, 2004, in an editorial headlined Responsibility for errors and indiscipline needs to be taken at the top:

The [Abu Ghraib] scandal is widening, with more allegations coming to light. Moreover, the abuse of these prisoners is not the only damaging error that has been made and it forms part of a culture of extra-legal behaviour that has been set at the highest level. Responsibility for what has occurred needs to be taken—and to be seen to be taken—at the highest level too. It is plain what that means. The secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, should resign. And if he won't resign, Mr Bush should fire him.

The Economist, December 9, 2004, in an editorial headlined Calls for the secretary-general to resign over the oil-for-food scandal are premature:

That there was a scandal is not in question. . . .This is a vast scam: its details must be uncovered and the guilty punished. But the details have not yet been uncovered, no charge has been proven, and no official has been convicted of corruption, though some may yet be.

Shouldn't the man at the top go anyway? Mr Annan is not the boss of a firm or president of a country, at whose desk the buck must automatically stop. He is the servant of his political masters. This general rule applied with a particular vengeance in the oil-for-food programme. The UN set up a secretariat to manage the programme, but the members of the Security Council maintained ultimate control. Every contract was scrutinised by a committee of its 15 members. It was not Mr Annan's fault that this committee soon became deadlocked.

Any questions?