US Defers to UN on Aid -- Why?

Why has the US agreed to fold its informal tsunami aid alliance (US, Japan, India, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands) into the UN relief effort? (here)

Iran has complained previously that the United "Oil-for-Food" Nations only delivered to it a fraction of the funds that were to have gone for earthquake relief in Bam, and after the "annus horriblis" the UN experienced in 2004, what evidence is there that they will do better now?

None.

The olive branch offered by Colin Powell may be little more than a twig, though. Powell says the UN will "play a lead role, but not the only lead role" in relief coordination, and the WashTimes reports in the link above that the Bush Administration has told the UN that it will not have access to US cash. At the same time, lead contributer Australia has expressed a similarly dim view of giving its cookie jar to the UN:

Australia, which made the largest single pledge of more than $800 million, said yesterday it prefers to deal directly with Indonesia and other affected countries in disbursing its aid.

"That is a much better outcome than pushing money through international organizations," Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer told CNN in an interview.

Perhaps State is tossing the UN a diplomatic bone -- denying the agency all authority would be a huge embarassment to Annan -- but what's the quid pro quo? And is that quid pro quo significant enough to risk the recovery of the region?

More likely, Powell's just giving Annan some verbal cover, while embarassing him a bit, too, with the restrictions that come with the thin vote of confidence. The good news is that it appears that the US has no intention of halting its current military-led relief effort, which must be tipping the good will scale dramatically in our favor in Indonesia, the world's most heavily populated Muslim nation.