October 11, 2010

The United Nations

Yeah, them again, those rascals.

Chuck here.

I’ve been meaning to post this since Friday last, but only just had the opportunity to look up the online version and do so. The article in question appeared in the New York Post under the heading, Raped Under UN Auspices: The corruption of peacekeeping.

This is the entire article by Claudia Rosette.

Can United Nations peace keeping deliver peace? It sure failed this summer in an eastern province of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where armed groups went on a spree of gang rape just 20 miles up the road from a contingent of dozens of UN blue helmets. Despite warnings of trouble, it took three days — during which the raping of hundreds of women continued — before a UN patrol showed up.

It took more than a week before the head of the UN’s Congo peacekeeping mission, US diplomat Roger Meece, says he learned of the rapes. And it took almost three weeks before the UN special representative for ending sexual violence in conflict zones, Margot Wallstrom, says she heard about it — from media reports.

The United Nations then responded with a ritual mea culpa. First blaming Congo authorities, a UN assistant secretary-general for peacekeeping, Atul Khare, said “Clearly we have also failed . . . We must do better.”

Dream on. The United Nations is forever promising to do bet-

ter. Instead, what it mainly does is get bigger, especially in the peacekeeping department.

During the UN’s first 45 years, from 1945-1990, it launched a grand total of 18 peacekeeping missions. In the 20 years since, it has initiated more than twice that number. Over the last decade, the number of UN peacekeeping personnel in the field has soared ninefold, to 124,000, involved in 16 operations, and the UN’s annual peacekeeping budget has more than quadrupled, to almost $8 billion — of which the United States supplies 27 percent, or more than $2 billion.

The record is at best one of fitful peace, punctuated by UN scandals and failure to prevent atrocities or even war and genocide. Examples abound, from Somalia to Rwanda, Srebenica, Haiti and Darfur.

Too often, the United Nations serves as a fig leaf for politicians, including American ones, while obfuscating or even perpetuating conflicts. In Lebanon, for instance, the UN has had peacekeepers in place since 1978. Under their noses the Iranian-backed terrorists of Hezbollah stockpiled weapons for the 2006 summer war with Israel. Under the gaze of a now-expanded UN peacekeeping force, Hezbollah is reportedly rearming, with deadlier weapons.

The current round of UN peacekeeping in the Congo dates back to 1999. Since then, the UN has more than tripled the number of uniformed personnel in the field, and since 2003 it has spent more than $7.5 billion on this mission. Yet the assaults, rapes and conflicts among warring factions have continued. This week, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon excused UN failures on grounds that “our resources are too limited.”

The real problem is that the opaque and diplomatically immune UN is far better at catering to itself than helping those it proposes — often unrealistically — to protect. UN peacekeeping is a gravy train for UN bureaucrats and for governments of many of the countries providing troops (the top five currently being Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Nigeria and Egypt).
With its multibillion-dollar budget, peacekeeping has been one of the most corrupt arenas of UN activity, a locus of what UN internal investigators in 2006 labeled “a culture of impunity.”

In the field, including the Congo, that UN culture has led to a series of scandals since 2004 involving not just peacekeepers ignoring rape right down the road, but doing it themselves. Despite a policy of “zero tolerance,” the United Nations itself reports more than 200 confirmed cases of sexual exploitation and abuse by peacekeepers since the start of 2007, with findings on another 200 or so allegations still pending, including 35 alleged instances in the first half of this year.

A UN fact sheet euphemistically notes that such abuse “continues to be a major challenge for the peacekeeping family.”

This week, the United Nations announced that together with Congo government forces, its peacekeepers had captured the man suspected of orchestrating the gang rapes this summer. That’s good news, but too late for those who were assaulted while UN troops failed to respond. To keep pouring billions into UN peacekeeping fuels a vehicle with a record of too many failures.

Surely, for the tormented places of the world, it’s time the leaders of the 21st century came up with new coalitions and better ways to pursue and keep the peace.

Well, we hadn’t had any reminders of the insanity of maintaining the corrupt menace to society known as the U.N. here at Hard Astarboard for some time, so at least now that’s been rectified.

by @ 6:15 pm. Filed under The United Nations
Trackback URL for this post:
http://hardastarboard.mu.nu/wp-trackback.php?p=1660

4 Responses to “The United Nations”

  1. BB-Idaho Says:

    Some of the UN peacekeeping activity seems more cosmetic than effective. Considering Lebanon, for example, UN ‘combat’ forces comprise 11,449 military personnel. One can only imagine the command and communication situation considering they come from
    Bangladesh, Belgium, Brunei, Cambodia, China, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, El Salvador, France, FYR of Macedonia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, Nepal, Nigeria, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Spain, Tanzania and Turkey. (!?) One of those ‘theory’ things, but IMO, somewhat more successful than the old League of Nations. (or stationing US marines in Beirut as in 1983)

  2. Chuck Says:

    BB Idaho,

    …somewhat more successful than the old League of Nations.

    Isn’t that kind of like saying that the British were more victorious in the War of 1812 than the Japanese were in WW II? :-)

  3. BB-Idaho Says:

    Yes, Chuck, it is kind of like saying that. heh
    But, the L of N was the only comparable baseline that I could come up with. Since 20-25 years of the League ended in WWII, the 65 years of UN muddling (considering the proliferation of nukes, etc)
    has sort of kept the lid on. Hence ’somewhat more successful’. :)
    Considering Africa’s problems, I guess in fairness we need note that
    the L of N dealt with colonial powers, the UN with tribal chaos..
    in which event we can only surmise the history had neither organization existed. Gee, I hope this comment is ’somewhat more successful’ than my first! :)

  4. Chuck Says:

    BB Idaho,

    Interesting observation, colonial powers vs tribal chaos.

    The problem with any entity like the UN or the L of N is three-fold:

    1. Eventually, as the UN has definitely taught us, they eventually become too big for their britches, opportunities for corruption-based personal revenues surface in increasing frequency and the appeal of politics they can influence on a global scale becomes too strong to be resisted.

    The UN is a virtual hot-bed of all three, and so focused are they on the resulting agendas, mediocrity in all other areas, such as “peace” keeping, regulating the proliferation of nukes and negotiating successful truces and treaties between opposing nations becomes the norm.

    Between one thing and another, while failing unforgiveably at the above, the UN also pushes agendas geared towqrd diluting the sovereignty of free countries like ours everywhere.

    We should abolish the UN and allow nations to handle their own diplomacy, preserving their respective sovereignty and other interests peculiar to their needs as countries.