Mugabe UN sponsored tirade.

[Monsoon]

Whats yours? paracowboy and Infanteer have first hand experience with the UN and its various failings. You have...?

You'll note that I didn't back up my arguments solely on the basis of my experience.  But you of all people must recognize the value of opinions formed from other than first-hand experience... right?

In any case, I would suggest that their experience (and the experience of soldiers in general) is coloured by exposure to situations at their worst.  Are all people evil because some people kill other people?  Are all people white slavers because some people are white slavers?  Is the UN then "corrupt, blatant criminals, responsible for slavery, enforced prostitution, arms dealing, and a host of reprehensible activites" because some people within the organization do those things?  I don't blame them for believing that the UN is "responsible" for slavery and arms dealing (does that mean those things would go away if the UN did?), but you have to recognize that the logic is... well... not.

I'm not going to defend the way things are done at the UN in crisis areas - you are right that they are often incapable in desperate situations, that some of their representatives are out for themselves, and that it's distasteful to be in the same body as criminals on the world stage, but you have to ask yourself if there is anyting to be solved by leaving the UN.  Corruption isn't endemic to the UN, it's endemic to the world.  As long as we're doing anything that involves places that have completely fallen to pieces, we have to involve the locals and put up with whatever it is they want to do or say.  The only alternative is isolationism.

so what does the human colon look like from the inside?
Corruption and crime is endemic to the entire UN, from the lowest to the highest, as shown by the Oil For Fraud scandal, and the numerous examples given previously.

Ah, the informed voice of experience!  Thank God this forum is blessed with experienced, well-spoken service members who are willing to share the fruits of their time in the CF in a calm, rational, non-egotistical way and to engage in friendly debate with anyone who cares to contribute meaningfully.  For example, para's direct experience with the Oil for Food scandal has clearly shown him things we non-soldiers can only imagine.

I now ask you hamiltongs, what do you define as the 'proverbial bad apples' in the UN...and then show us the 'good work' that is being done as of late.

As for good work, I was thinking more along the lines of relief work in Africa, AIDS treatment, agricultural development, the international civil aviation system, cultural preservation, international banking regulation, distribution of blood, third world debt relief, disease control, drinking water infrastructure development, international communications agreements, etc.  Obviously our experienced colleagues would have no exposure to many of those things in Bosnia or Afghanistan, but the UN does them all.  Sounds like throwing out the baby with the bathwater to me, but then I've never done an armoured patrol through Zgon, so what would I know?

 

[a_majoor]

I'm not going to defend the way things are done at the UN in crisis areas - you are right that they are often incapable in desperate situations, that some of their representatives are out for themselves, and that it's distasteful to be in the same body as criminals on the world stage, but you have to ask yourself if there is anyting to be solved by leaving the UN.   Corruption isn't endemic to the UN, it's endemic to the world.   As long as we're doing anything that involves places that have completely fallen to pieces, we have to involve the locals and put up with whatever it is they want to do or say.   The only alternative is isolationism.

Still working on Kaplan's "Imperial Grunts", but the essential difference between the US actions being described and the UN is in the case of American deployments, they accept local corruption as the cost of doing business, while in cases like "Oil for Food", the UN is an active participant. There is a very essential difference.

As for good work, I was thinking more along the lines of relief work in Africa, AIDS treatment, agricultural development, the international civil aviation system, cultural preservation, international banking regulation, distribution of blood, third world debt relief, disease control, drinking water infrastructure development, international communications agreements, etc.   Obviously our experienced colleagues would have no exposure to many of those things in Bosnia or Afghanistan, but the UN does them all.   Sounds like throwing out the baby with the bathwater to me, but then I've never done an armoured patrol through Zgon, so what would I know?

Sure the UN does them, and I have seen some of the rambling unfinished projects the UN "does" in Cyprus and Bosnia. While there are a lot of goods people doing yeoman work in UN agencies, once again, a checksum would be to see the difference in time and cost building schools, digging wells and providing infrastructure between a UN project and hiring Kellogg, Brown and Root to do the same thing.....The people doing field work at current UN agencies would probably thrive under any number of different employers.

The argument seems to be between supporters of the UN as an ideal, and wanting to see effective and practical results on the ground. Frankly, since it is my tax dollars that are going to "support" the UN, I would much rather divert my money to some organization that really gets the job done, rather than paying for an inflated body count at UN HQ and seeing the end results being the sad catalogue of failure and corruption noted above.

 

[paracowboy]

Ah, the informed voice of experience!  

indeed.

Thank God this forum is blessed with experienced, well-spoken service members who are willing to share the fruits of their time in the CF in a calm, rational, non-egotistical way and to engage in friendly debate with anyone who cares to contribute meaningfully.

  indeed

For example, para's direct experience with the Oil for Food scandal has clearly shown him things we non-soldiers can only imagine.

and I claimed direct experience with the Oil-For-Fraud, when?

As for good work, I was thinking more along the lines of relief work in Africa,

and the same Africa that has Rwanda, Somalia, and a few other antions where Canadian soldiers were feet on the ground, witnessing the horrors of UN assistance? As mentioned in the earlier post?

AIDS treatment,

going well in Africa, too. The only country that has shown a reduction in the AIDS rate is the one country that told the UN to stuff it. Odd, that.

agricultural development, the international civil aviation system, cultural preservation, international banking regulation, distribution of blood, third world debt relief, disease control, drinking water infrastructure development, international communications agreements, etc.

show me some successes in any of these that the UN can legitimately claim to their credit.

Obviously our experienced colleagues would have no exposure to many of those things in Bosnia or Afghanistan,

  but we would have exposure to those individuals whom we can trust that have.

I've never done an armoured patrol through Zgon, so what would I know

evidently, not enough. You'd prefer to believe what the media spoon-feeds you, than what your fellow CF members have witnessed.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The UN as a forum for cheap dictators to beak off and preen in?  I like it.  Naturally the UN Charter will have to cease being a document of reference in all matters of international custom.

There is nothing magical about the UN which is necessary for multinational operations.  All that is needed are participants and the will to proceed.

 

[RangerRay]

not too mention certain Canadian politicians and friends

Jean Chretien, Paul Desmarais and Maurice Strong?

 

[TheNomad]

All Canadian soldiers are murdering and corrupt.  Why do I say this?  Because based on the logic displayed here they must be.  Some soldiers supplied to the UN are murderers, some are corrupt.  They are soldiers from their nations armies.  Canada supplies soldiers to the UN, some have committed murder, some are corrupt = all Canadian soldiers are murderers and corrupt.

If this is not so, why do people use individual acts of corruption and malpractice by people who work for the UN to the allegation that the UN is corrupt and that those who work for it are?
 
By the way.  I do work for the UN.  I work very hard, often in hostile places, just like Canadian soldiers (though without the luxury of a logistics train to support me).  I am not corrupt  ( I have seen RCMP members being sent home for fraud).  I do not engage in prostitution (though I have seen both Canadian soldier and RCMP doing so).  Do I really think that all Canadian soldiers are criminals?  Of course not, yet I note that the CFMP exists so there must be something wrong with some of them.  So you can imagine how I get fed up with yet more general UN bashing and being accused of being a criminal by people who display more their own lack of knowledge about the UN and how it works - or why it works it such a way.

The UN is only as effective as the member states are willing to let it be.  I honestly believe that one of the UN's roles is to be the whipping boy of the world.  When the governments of the world are willing to sit by and do nothing about an impending disaster they promptly pass the blame onto the UN.  Where is all the money to pay for the UN to help in Darfur?  The UN has been telling the world about this for a long time, but no one is interested.  When the masses die - they will blame the UN though.

Take Rwanda.  The UN got it badly wrong.  But where was the Canadian Army?  The Canadian government knew the disaster was going to happen yet I do not remember seeing them deciding that they would do the right thing and send troops in.

Anyhow I have had enough writing this.  I am sure I will now be subjected to the usual ignorant attacks.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote,
The UN is only as effective as the member states are willing to let it be.  I honestly believe that one of the UN's roles is to be the whipping boy of the world.  When the governments of the world are willing to sit by and do nothing about an impending disaster they promptly pass the blame onto the UN.  Where is all the money to pay for the UN to help in Darfur?  The UN has been telling the world about this for a long time, but no one is interested.  When the masses die - they will blame the UN though.

...and your own quotes is what convicts the UN in my eyes. Too many tin-pots with too much money do nothing but whine while the same few countries keep giving and giving.....and then getting a black eye from a goof like Mugabe.

 

[Monsoon]

Still working on Kaplan's "Imperial Grunts", but the essential difference between the US actions being described and the UN is in the case of American deployments, they accept local corruption as the cost of doing business, while in cases like "Oil for Food", the UN is an active participant. There is a very essential difference.

It's a good article, and they make a strong case about the points you mention.  It bears pointing out, though, that the US is frankly much better funded than the UN - putting up with petty corruption in associates is really the only alternative when you can't afford to do business without them, like the US can.

Sure the UN does them, and I have seen some of the rambling unfinished projects the UN "does" in Cyprus and Bosnia. While there are a lot of goods people doing yeoman work in UN agencies, once again, a checksum would be to see the difference in time and cost building schools, digging wells and providing infrastructure between a UN project and hiring Kellogg, Brown and Root to do the same thing.....The people doing field work at current UN agencies would probably thrive under any number of different employers.

The argument seems to be between supporters of the UN as an ideal, and wanting to see effective and practical results on the ground. Frankly, since it is my tax dollars that are going to "support" the UN, I would much rather divert my money to some organization that really gets the job done, rather than paying for an inflated body count at UN HQ and seeing the end results being the sad catalogue of failure and corruption noted above.

Again, it all comes down to the UN's ability to finish the jobs it starts - if there is one complaint against it that I will gladly agree with, it's that the UN consistently bites off more than it can chew.  But this is again a matter of financing - the UN is doing work in remote, media-disinteresting places that get no attention whatsoever.  Even though the work they do is incomplete it's better than nothing, and that is the real alternative.  The total regular budget for the UN and its agencies in FY 2004-2005 was slightly more than $7 billion dollars - that's just over half of Canada's (insufficient) funding for its military.  There's not a lot of Canadian tax dollars being spent there.  Is the incomplete quality of some of the UN's work a reason to abandon it, or to commit more funding?

 

[Brad Sallows]

If an organization is corrupt or perceived as such, it's up to the people who believe in it to reform it and to make me believe that they have in fact reformed it.  Or they can submit to failure.

Regarding whether to spend more money, as a rule one does not reinforce failure.

You want to pay "squeeze" to get stuff done?  Fine, subscribe or donate from your own means.  Leave my conscripted tax revenues out of the equation.

 

[a_majoor]

It's a good article, and they make a strong case about the points you mention.   It bears pointing out, though, that the US is frankly much better funded than the UN - putting up with petty corruption in associates is really the only alternative when you can't afford to do business without them, like the US can.

The book is much more in depth, but the essential point is the US has the resources and will to do it alone if required, and teams on the ground will only put up with corruption on a limited basis. The UN however is not dealing in "petty corruption with associates", the Oil for Food scandle is dealing in the diversion of several Billion dollars, and the UN is in fact holding a large amount of that money in its own coffers when it should be turned over to the Government of Iraq.

Once again, we need to separate the rhetoric and idealism from the imposition of metrics and the measuring of results. The laundry list of UN scandles and failures is quite specific, and there are hard numbers attached as well, especially in terms of human casualties. The various UN agancies are not generally held to any metrics, rather a "look at the good work we are doing". A hard nosed accounting atitude would probably reveal the results they do achieve are probably out of line with the amount of funding that goes into the various agencies. 

 

[Infanteer]

...and your own quotes is what convicts the UN in my eyes. Too many tin-pots with too much money do nothing but whine while the same few countries keep giving and giving.....and then getting a black eye from a goof like Mugabe.

...and that is where I stand as well.  The UN is structurally unsound as:

1)  The equal moral pedestal puts our decisions up for condemnation by Iran, Zimbabwe, and Myanmar.

2)  The structure of the Security Council is a Cold War ediface that gets nothing done.

As I said in my first post, either leave (there is nothing we can't do outside of it through other organizations) or raise the requirements from "being a state".

 

[TheNomad]

The Secretary general today once again asked the world to start providing funds to prevent a second disaster in the region of Pakistan hit by the earthquake.

Not much money is forthcoming and already people are asking where is the UN?

If no one pays up and thousands more die - who will be blamed - the governments who do not pay or the UN?

Bear in mind that usually loads of governments pledge loads of money, but most governments do not actually pay up.

 

[a_majoor]

From Chaos Manor:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view384.html

This morning at breakfast I read an article on page 7 of today's LA Times. It was about entrenched abuse of locals by the UN Overlords otherwise known as Peace Keeping troops. I must not have looked closed at the attribution, because I find the same article was published today in Newsday:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world
/la-fg-abuse19oct19,0,4991420.story?coll=
ny-leadworldnews-headlines

Interestingly, although the article goes into detail, it says nothing about the nationality of the UN mercenaries who are involved in wholesale sexual abuse of those they protect. With one exception: it says Bosnian policemen were involved in the Natasha trade (what used to be known as white slavery; Stuart Cloete wrote well about the practices in Victorian England, and was concerned that it was going on even today). A bit of preliminary research turned up :

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/data/pktp05.htm
and
http://www.un.org/peace/bnote010101.pdf

which give some information on UN Peacekeeping operations. Having the UN pay the bills is one way small countries can afford to keep larger than usual armies, and serving in such operations is generally lucrative compared to work at home. It's possible that these UN operations do more good than harm. I haven't looked into them. It does seem that there ought to be some mechanism for disciplining the troops: the UN isn't a sovereign entity and can't actually prosecute soldiers under its command. The home country has to do that, and most don't. On the other hand, changing things so that the UN has criminal prosecutory powers is a cure far worse than the disease.

I doubt this is a large problem compared to many of the ills that plague the world, but it is also one more example of how the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[Infanteer]

Pakistan is asking for money?  Too bad they wasted it on a nuclear weapons program instead of looking after their people....

 

[Glorified Ape]

...and that is where I stand as well.   The UN is structurally unsound as:

1)   The equal moral pedestal puts our decisions up for condemnation by Iran, Zimbabwe, and Myanmar.

2)   The structure of the Security Council is a Cold War ediface that gets nothing done.

As I said in my first post, either leave (there is nothing we can't do outside of it through other organizations) or raise the requirements from "being a state".

I agree with the Security Council issues - the SC virtually castrates the UN everytime it's even close to doing anything substantial. As for the "equal moral pedestal", what would you suggest? We're not going to get anywhere by morally proselytizing through UN inclusion. The whole point of the UN was multilateralism - cherry picking based on "morality" would seem to conflict with that to some degree, as any variety of moral difference could be used as some excuse to exclude a state from discourse if we didn't like what it had to say. 

From Chaos Manor:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view384.html

Yes, lets rag on the UN for not disciplining their soldiers and then condemn the granting of power which would allow them to do so. Sounds like Pournelle is on another fantastic voyage. Maybe he should stick to Sci Fi. Asimov he ain't. 

the US has the resources and will to do it alone if required, and teams on the ground will only put up with corruption on a limited basis.

I agree - it has the capability, but do we really want it to? The US (or Canada, just to appease the knee-jerkers) is no better than most states where acting in their own interests is concerned and, by virtue of its capability, it's in a much better position to do serious damage. Sure, we could have unilateral intervention predicated on the single party's interests as our official "international body" but judging by how well that practice, with this specific actor and its quality of judgement, has gone recently, I surely wouldn't get behind it.

As for failure, the US has had no shortage of it and its cost has been no less than the UN's insofar as human casualties are concerned. Indeed, if one consider's Rwanda, one might conclude that the UN's failure may, just possibly, have been partially the responsibility of the US (and Canada's too, knee-jerkers) given its position on the Security Council and its lobbying for total UN withdrawal (and subsequent blocking of reinforcement) in April of '94 and its hairsplitting on "genocide".

I don't think the US is a better candidate (or a more desirable one) than the UN is, regardless of capability (and partially because of it). As for corruption, the reek of it in the current administration is plenty strong.

 

[TheNomad]

Just as a matter of interest the UN has estimated it will need 500 m to pay for the disaster relief operations in Pakistan.  It will be a long job, and now that winter is comming, more mass deaths are expected unless the world acts quickly.  :skull:

So far the world has pledged 85 m.  ???

When the cold hits and they start dying like flies, I wonder who will get the blame??? 

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

..and what percentage of that 500 million actually makes it?  Not much, I'll wager......and so where are the "oil-rich" nations right now? Too busy telling us we shouldn't be the great satan?