it's Norway or the doorway.

If I wasn't the one who wrote this post and was merely informed that its title “ it’s Norway or the Doorway” pertained to Jan Egeland —the UN eurodip who groused about the “stinginess” of advanced nations (read the U.S.)—I would have automatically assumed the title was inspired by the Jan Egeland's doorknob-like intelligence. No, it is just Mark Steyn’s take on Egeland’s actual agenda :

What Jan Egeland means when he talks of "stinginess" is you're not ponying up enough taxpayer bucks to his departmental budget. That's the only measure of global compassion that matters, and he doesn't want to have his time wasted with a lot of chit-chat about any of this other stuff: It's my way or the highway, he says — if, indeed, such a thing is said in Norwegian. Anyway, it's Norway or the doorway. As it happens, the United States pays 40 percent of Mr. Egeland's budget. But, even if the budget was tripled and the U.S. paid 70 percent of it, that wouldn't be enough.

[…]

Yet, even though Mr. Egeland's office has a permanent bureaucracy dedicated solely to humanitarian relief work, a week after the disaster it didn't seem to have actually done anything other than fly in some experts to assess the situation. Reporters on the ground have noted the lack of activity in Colombo and Sumatra. But the U.S. government already had ships and troops and water and medicine on the way.

It was already clear enough that the transnationalists think that the only proper role for nation-states is to fund the UN and then step aside while the UN handles everything. If case it wasn’t then Clare Short—the eurotwit who quit British Prime Minister Blair’s cabinet in a huff over the Iraq war—has made it explicit. She stated:

...the effect of the parallel coalition would be to undermine the UN. ... only the UN had the "moral authority" to lead the relief work.

The UN has Moral Authority? Please. The UN spared no effort to prolong the Iraqi people’s suffering by protecting Saddam and his tyranny. Instead of the UN it was the U.S. that saved the Iraqi people by removing Saddam. I’d like to see Short try to lecture the Iraqis about the UN’s “Moral Authority”.

"I think this initiative from America to set up four countries claiming to co-ordinate sounds like yet another attempt to undermine the UN when it is the best system we have got …"Only really the UN can do that job,"

Got that? Jan Egeland’s “stinginess” comment wasn’t about 120,000 tsunamis victims, it’s all about the transnationalists trying to rescue the UN.

update:

Great minds think alike. Jonah Goldberg characterizes the UN as odious:

If the issue is helping suffering people, why did the United Nations crowd - led by Clare Short, the former head of U.N. international development - scream bloody murder when it was announced that India, Japan, Australia and the United States would coordinate aid efforts? Short declared that any efforts to help the suffering tsunami victims outside U.N. authority would "undermine" the world body.

So much for pragmatism. Who cares who helps the needy, and under what flag, as long as it gets done?

As it happens, the United Nations' most ardent supporters are anything but pragmatists. They hope passionately that the organization might become what Tennyson called the "Parliament of Man, the Federation of the world." Or they hope with equal fervor that it may serve as an idealistic alternative to American hegemony. Or they wish for both. And that's where I start having problems.

Hmmp. Odious, huh? The Cambridge dictionary defines odious as:

extremely unpleasant; causing and deserving hate

Yup, Jonah couldn't have put it more succinctly.

Jonah made another observation:

The United Nations really is an amazing cultural fault line. On one side are
those who believe that it is the last, best hope for mankind. On the other are
those who think that title still belongs to America.

Yup. My only problem with his characterization is that I'm convinced that the UN has shown itself to be the last hope of bloody tyrants (e.g., Saddam, Slobodan Milosevic.) It amazes me that anyone would misplace the UN into a list of possible "hopes for mankind".

Tony Blankley also speaks for me when he predicts that, after the dust has settled, that nobody will say "thank you":

The president should [stop pandering]. Money will not buy him -- or us -- love. He and America should give according to the voice of our conscience -- not in order to try to win a compassion competition.

It was inevitable that we would do all in our power to save lives, bring in emergency food, water, medicine and shelter. No other country is able to do it, and few other countries would be motivated to do so. But virtue is its own reward. Those around the world (and here at home) who hate, fear or envy the United States will never love us for our good deeds. So be it. [Emphasis mine—johnh]

But after we have taken care of the emergency (which we will do, pretty much singlehanded -- I don't think we are waiting for a French or German aircraft carrier full of helicopters and medicine), let us not get carried away with generosity for rebuilding lands that have been mismanaged since the beginning of time.

He right, you know. The U.S.’ interventions in Bosnia, Kosovo and Somalia primarily benefited Muslims. The U.S. cannot be accused of self-interest because we had no interests at stake in any of these cases. Did the Great Satan earn any good will in the Muslim world? HA! As Tony Blankley says, "Virtue is its own reward".

Which is a good thing because in each case nobody ever said "thank you" afterwards.