Free Markets, Free People

The useless and predatory UN

Useless you say?  How is it “useless”?

Well there are a myriad of things one could point too, but perhaps the latest from the UN’s “elections”:

UN Watch instead is calling on Ban Ki-moon, U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power, and the EU’s UN ambassadors to condemn the world body’s “absurd and morally obscene” election just of Syria and Venezuela to senior posts on a decolonization committee that is charged with upholding fundamental human rights in opposing the “subjugation, domination and exploitation” of peoples — a propaganda victory that—like before—is already being trumpeted by the Assad regime.

Yet the UN wants to be taken seriously as some sort of world governing body that looks out for the interests of the oppressed and the subjugated by putting members of two of the most oppressive regimes on this committee.

Uh huh.

By the way, the 17 territories still held as “colonies” are as follows:

The 17 territories still listed as colonies by the committee are American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Falklands, French Polynesia, Gibraltar, Guam, Montserrat, New Caledonia, Pitcairn, Tokelau, Turks and Caicos, St. Helena, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Western Sahara.

Most of those on the list want nothing to do with disassociation with their “colonist”. In reality, this is just another in a long line of committees the UN uses for lavish boondoggles:

The committee is notorious for its habit of holding regional seminars in tropical islands—”alternately in the Caribbean and the Pacific”—at considerable expense. Madeleine K. Albright, as U.S. representative at the United Nations in the late 1990s, called these expenditures ”frivolous and unneeded.”

At the time, activities of the committee were investigated by the United Nations inspector general, Karl T. Paschke, who concluded that money was being squandered.

And, as usual, you (among many others) pay for it.

In other UN news, much more serious than the above:

“A horrible thing,” says an elfin 14-year-old girl, who describes how a Burundian soldier dragged her into his barracks and raped her, leaving her pregnant with the baby boy she now cradles uncomfortably.

The allegations come amid one of the biggest scandals to plague the United Nations in years. Since the U.N. peacekeeping mission here began in 2014, its employees have been formally accused of sexually abusing or exploiting 42 local civilians, most of them underage girls.

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has called sexual abuse by peacekeepers “a cancer in our system.” In August, the top U.N. official here was fired for failing to take enough action on abuse cases. Nearly 1,000 troops whose units have been tied to abuses have been expelled, or will be soon. Among them is the entire contingent from the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Yes, it is a “cancer” in the UN’s “system, but the UN does nothing about it.  It certainly isn’t a new problem:

In Bosnia in the 1990s, peacekeepers were accused of soliciting sex from women who had been trafficked and virtually enslaved in local brothels. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the early 2000s, more than 150 allegations of abuse and exploitation were registered against peacekeepers, and U.N. investigators found that many of the alleged victims were orphans. U.N. missions in Kosovo, Haiti, Liberia and other places also have been tarnished by such allegations.

The UN was supposedly a noble idea whose time had come when it was first begun.  Now it has devolved into a third world debating and boondoggle club with a little rape on the side for “peacekeepers”.

If I was in one of the countries the UN has attempted to “help” and I saw a blue helmet, I’d get as far away from the person wearing it as I could.

They’re useless in a real sense, but certainly predatory if you have any females in the area … no matter how young.


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

50 Responses to The useless and predatory UN

  • The UN isn’t useless. It presents massive opportunities for graft and corruption.
    As for the predatory peace keepers (bwah ha ha) maybe Hollywood can do a movie on that to win best picture? Or maybe in Rotherham?

  • I find it amusing that Nigeria, which has its own problems, “contributes” about 3,000 peacekeepers. Even more amazing, Rwanda “contributes” 6,000.

    “They come from nations large and small, rich and poor. They bring different cultures and experience to the job, but they are united in their determination to foster peace.”

    Speaking of graft and corruption, providing peacekeepers is a nice little racket.

    And who could forget Camp Bondsteel? Remember that one year US troop commitment? I know it’s a NATO, not UN facility, but I think it deserves some mention. Perhaps you know someone who needs a job; Torres Advanced Engineering Solutions is hiring armed guards to protect the US forces stationed there.

    And have a happy primary day, tomorrow.

  • To be sure, the UN is used as an instrument of US policy, and given that the US has a Security Council veto, the UN is impotent to do anything against the US. That’s why most policy makers see the UN as useful – sometimes in big ways like Korea and Iraq, other times in pursuing US diplomatic goals. As far as peacekeeping operations go, they’ve been effective more often then not, and work from many of the sub organizations has saved millions of life, pushing first and third world people to work together on humanitarian issues (WHO, FAO, UNESCO, UNICEF, etc.) So overall most analysts think that while there is corruption and silly committees which are essentially impotent, the UN is worth it because the US can use it to pursue its policy goals. Of course, the UN wasn’t meant to be a tool for US policy makers, but…

    • “…overall most analysts think…”

      “Most analysts here” think you are an irredeemable douchebag. But I disagree with that conclusion. You’re actually a lying psychopath with an ingrained program of clichés and informal fallacies that you repeat robotically, *and* you are an irredeemable douchebag.

      “…overall most analysts think…”

      “…overall most analysts think…”

      “…overall most analysts think…”

      • And you post on the level of Donald Trump and Marco Rubio’s interactions. The GOP Middle School playground! Yah!

        • Gosh, Scott, I’m so sorry. But QandO’s full time parodist, Ott Scerb, who has spent years making a fool out of you like a true professional, seems to be neglecting his duties. So I had to drop by and point out that you are so shallow that you couldn’t pass a Turing test if your life depended on it.

          “…overall most analysts think…”

          “…overall most analysts think…”

          “…overall most analysts think…”

          • Yet I got a Ph.D. from a top ten Poli-Sci program, and an MA from Johns Hopkins. But true, they didn’t give Turing tests… Shallow = internet insults. Wait, was that one?! 😉

          • And a PhD! From Johns Hopkins. Damn, you never told us that before, Scott. Now all that shallow repetition, the fraudulent arguments, the shallow repetition, the strange narcissistic *shallow* deceitful personality, that’s all good, all O.K. Because PhD. From Johns Hopkins.

            “…overall most analysts think…”

            “…overall most analysts think…”

            “…overall most analysts think…”

          • Excuse me. Because PhD. from “top-ten *Poli-Sci program*.”

            It’s all O.K.

            “…overall most analysts think…”

            “…overall most analysts think…”

            “…overall most analysts think…”

          • All that matters to me is that you can’t deny my claim. True, in my job I read a lot of material from expert analysis – I have to in order to keep up on global events. Sorry if that bugs you.

          • Let me quote you, Scott, as the final authority on you:

          • Yet I got a Ph.D. from a top ten Poli-Sci program

            —–you just proved his point you effing worthless egghead

      • Don’t forget “To be sure”

    • The security council only means they can’t vote to bomb the US. They are free to turn the rest of the UN into a circus.

      • True, but an impotent circus. The UN is a useful tool for American foreign policy. Whether or not an international organization should exist that functions primarily as an American tool is a legitimate question. But for now, that’s what it is at least in the eyes of US policy makers.

    • Yes, useful to keep various leaders of the third world debating and panhandling society out of less useful pursuits like slaughtering their own people.

      Oh, wait, it fails at that too.

    • “As far as peacekeeping operations go, they’ve been effective more often then not”

      “Don’t tell, show”

      “work from many of the sub organizations has saved millions of life,”

      Something that could be, and has been, accomplished without the UN more effectively and with less corruption. See ‘American Relief Administration’, CARE, etc. ad inf.

      • For peace keeping click here. There is a link on that page “history of peacekeeping” which will give more information.

        • As usual, your sources are a joke. Your thesis and dissertation must have gotten a lot of laughs.

          I prefer to rely on something a little more objective than the UN Public Relations Dept.

      • Nothing quite like asking Mr. Capone to report on his recent activities in the neighborhood to protect the local store owners from criminal elements.

      • And indeed, who could ever forget the highly successful peacekeeping efforts in Rwanda that led to the making of the movie –

        Hotel Rawanda.

        Ah, yes, bright spots in the long tradition of UN Peacekeeping efforts, saving millions of lives.

        “…The UN Peacekeeping forces, led by Canadian Colonel Oliver (Nolte), are unable to take assertive action against the Interahamwe since they are forbidden to intervene in the genocide…”
        ” the genocide that ended in July 1994 left almost a million people dead.”

        • By the way, don’t quote Hotel Rwanda – it’s not a bad film but takes liberties on historical accuracy. There was no Colonel Oliver – that was a composite character. Check out the book by Gen. Romeo Dallaire (a character upon whom Oliver was in part based) called “Shake Hands with the Devil.” They also made a movie based on it that IS historically accurate. The film brutally shows the things the UN did wrong, it is harshly critical of the UN in the Rwanda mission. The UN is only what the Security Council allows it to be; it’s the French and Americans who really messed this up (under Clinton, by the way). If you get the movie, get the Canadian film “Shake Hands with the Devil,” not a documentary about Dallaire by the same name (though the documentary is good). I’m actually very critical of a lot of UN operations – but while it’s cute to call it things like “useless and predatory,” that’s a kind of binary thinking that political junkies often engage in – label things good or bad, ignore the complexity. Read Gen. Dallaire’s book, it is one of the most important books in recent history.

      • Or Srebrenica! Good time, Good times!

        • You’re logic is off. Not every mission is a success – indeed, if the two sides want to fight, then there is little the UN can do. But that doesn’t deny that there have been many successes. Your logic would be like attacking a 45 HR hitter by pointing out only the times he struck out. It’s an inherently dishonest style of argumentation. I’ve pointed to a link with information, including historical information about the peace keeping operations. You can’t counter that, so instead of admitting the point, you try to obfuscate. I guess you’re learning from The Donald!

          • I would suggest you read all the links I provided before you waste any more of your blanks.
            I provided 4 links, to your one.
            None of them written by the organization we’re discussing, because, objective reporting about Mr. Capone and his organization is less likely to come from Mr. Capone and his organization.

            I provided links that detail successes, and failures.
            Not by my reckoning, but by that of people more qualified than I to make the judgement.
            Dare I say, people more qualified than you as well.

            I obfuscated nothing, I provided information for people inclined to read more than a party line blurb written by the very organization that is being criticized for it’s failures.
            If by ‘obfuscate’ you mean I provided relevant information that you didn’t bother to read, or chose to disregard because it says things that disagree with your position, then in the world where obfuscate means what you want it to mean, rather than what it has traditionally meant, I obfuscated.

            If you read the links, you’ll see there were many instances of failure, and hence, many examples, readily available, to provide.
            Which refutes your mere insistence that ‘more often than not’ the peacekeeping missions are successful, and of course your advertising supplement written by the UN about the success of the UN.

            And wow – how quickly you went to calling me dishonest, tossing out some very thinly veiled insults (Trump no less), school yard thingie.
            Well done, man of your word, honor and all that.

          • Ah, the thrilling days of yester….week

            Scott Erb on February 4, 2016 at 11:33
            ” But I guarantee you – I’ll be honest, respectful, and I’ll listen. If you can’t stand opinions different than yours, just don’t read what I post. If you’re one of the owners of this blog, you could choose to ban me. I could respect that since it’s your blog, but it would be disappointed because I am really focused on remaining respectful, listening and avoiding falling into silly arguments like those of the past. Still, its up to you.”

            This guarantee you speak of – exactly how does it work?

          • You’re being a bit too touchy here. I will point out rhetorical tactics that are dishonest. I’m doing so in a polite manner, but if you engage in such tactics I will politely, even gently, call you out for them. Given the insults you dish out, you should be able to take that without getting upset. Note too that I never denied many instances of failure – heck, I teach a whole unit on Rwanda (hence my suggestion above to read Dallaire) and go into peace keeping successes and failures with some detail. I’m arguing against binary arguments (UN perfect vs. UN useless) to show that it has numerous successes amongst its failures. You’re arguing in a way that’s designed to try to focus on only one and ignore the other. That leads to false conclusions. If you don’t like me calling it dishonest argumentation, then it’s intellectually sloppy at the least, not really trying for truth but just to push a side. I’m interested in what is true.

          • “indeed, if the two sides want to fight, then there is little the UN can do”

            And if they don’t want to fight, the UN is irrelevant. Logic ain’t your strong suit.

            Those of us who actually pay attention to current events can remember UN fiascos going back to the Congo in the ’60s.

          • The point was not that the UN is a complete failure.
            The point is their peacekeeping record doesn’t list more success than failure, and their record of sexual abuse has been, and continues to be inexcusable, and is well known.
            It’s an affront that our tax dollars are being used in this way.

            I’m Sloppy…heh, yes.
            You provided one linked example, written by the organization for the organization, extolling their virtues, and act as if that’s all the proof that was required.
            Your other sources are your own references about course you teach. Appeal to authority.

            Your argument is to negate the substance of the information I provided by, stating, that my logic is faulty, dishonest, obfuscatory, and in the manner of Donald Trump, that is, buffoonish.

            The information I provided with reference to the initial post stands on it’s own merits, and in no way has been refuted by your single self serving link written by the UN, or your assurance that you’re an expert because you teach a course on Rwanda and have a degree in Poly Sci.

            I’m touchy – no, I’m serving up your words from a couple weeks ago as a demonstration of your insincerity in discussions.
            I have absolutely no intention of going down one of your rabbit holes with you, and this is where the trail ends.

          • So Alan, you’re posting a lot of words, but I’m not sure where we disagree. There have obviously been many successes in UN peace keeping. You point out failures, and I certainly acknowledge those. We agree Rwanda was a failure (I seriously suggest you read Gen. Dallaire’s book – it is brutal in his critique of the UN, I consider Dallaire a true hero. He has PTSD and even attempted suicide before he got the help he needed. Now he works to try to rehabilitate former child soldiers). If you weren’t so worried about the personal aspects of our discussion I suspect we could have a very productive interaction. In any event, I don’t see any real disagreement at this point, so that’s good!

          • You’re being a bit too touchy…. I’m doing so in a polite manner…I will politely, even gently…you should…without getting upset….

            Because emotions, rather than facts and reasoning, matter most in political debates?

            Your dishonest tactics frequently provoke disgust, even anger, which indicates nothing about your arguments being factually and logically sound. And, even more often, you portray your opponent as being “touchy”, “upset”, angry, or having other emotions when they actually don’t.

            That ploy to shift from facts/login to emotions is lame. You should stop it.

          • “”If you weren’t so worried about the personal aspects of our discussion I suspect we could have a very productive interaction.”

            “You’re logic is off.” (Sic)
            “It’s an inherently dishonest style of argumentation. ”
            “you try to obfuscate. I guess you’re learning from The Donald!”
            ” intellectually sloppy”

            Our definitions of ‘productive’ fail to sync.

            “I’m interested in what is true.” (that was included as comedy gold)

            As to the UN Peacekeepers – if any other agency but a government agency, and especially this clownish one of international proportions, screwed up it’s fundamental mission (Peacekeeping) as often as the UN did, it would be disbanded (see Canadian Airborne Regiment – Somalia) rather than have it’s funding and missions increased.

            From the Washington Post article linked in the post itself.
            “Only one criminal charge has been filed in relation to any of the 42 cases of sexual abuse or exploitation that have been officially registered in the Central African Republic, according to U.N. officials.
            U.N. officials did file a report on the 14-year-old mother’s case, and a U.N. spokeswoman, Ismini Palla, said the organization was “monitoring the case of the girl closely.” But nine months after the girl reported the alleged rape, investigators have not reported any results. U.N. officials had no comment on why they had classified the case as exploitation rather than assault.”

            It’s as useful (useless) as a retraining order for stopping an armed maniac who is breaking down your door.
            In documented cases, it IS the armed maniac breaking down your door.

            That was one of the 2 points of the post to which you remarked –
            “As far as peacekeeping operations go, they’ve been effective more often then not, ”

            We do not agree, the failures outweigh the successes, the sexual abuse cases are insult stacked on injury.

          • Elliot, you have a philosophical view of politics that I consider out of touch with reality, based on faulty and simplistic reasoning, and unworkable in the real world. You think I have an immoral political view that rationalizes theft, exploration and force against innocent people. We have argued those points, I certainly accept that you think differently than I do without holding it against you personally; you have always seemed to take arguments against your position as a kind of personal failure. In the real world I get along with pretty much everyone – heck I watched the 2012 Presidential debates with a conservative friend over beer. We disagreed with mutual respect. The thing is, I tend to like almost everyone – even you, even when you insult me. Insults roll off me, they have no impact. A good argument, however, will get my attention!

          • …you have always seemed to take arguments against your position as a kind of personal failure.

            Again, you abandon facts and logic, decree what others feel, and then prance around in victory because of your insipid premise that the person who remains calm beats the person who gets emotional.

            Reality doesn’t work that way. People who are wrong can be calm, people who are correct may get angry. There are good reasons to get angry, incensed, disgusted, or otherwise motivated when government officials or others take political or military action which harms others. Oftentimes, anger is quite justified and, properly controlled, helps to direct one’s energies to stopping those who harm others. If we took your ridiculous premise to its logical conclusion, if a white supremacist group denies the Holocaust/Shoah and a Jewish spokesperson gets upset, the white supremacist wins.

            No, I reject that. That’s a sick way to judge truth or morality.

            And, I know from personal experience that >95% of the time, when you declare that I’m “upset” or “angry”, you’re completely wrong. I’ve frequently laughed at your attempts to get under my skin.

            …you have a philosophical view of politics that I consider out of touch with reality….

            I don’t believe you. As I just pointed out, there have been dozens of occasions in which you made some declaration about me which I knew to be a lie. This is “spin” and it’s lame. You’re disingenuous in that you don’t say what you actually believe to be true. You say what you think presents the best image for you, or that which you judge to be most likely to provoke.

            My philosophical viewpoint is precisely to deal with reality, rejecting magical thinking (appeals to supernatural, wishful/imaginary thinking, appeals to a fictional collective interest, etc.). I have no party loyalty. I’m not a member of any political party, movement, or organization. Unlike you, I don’t wear partisan blinders, nor feel compelled to distort my descriptions to protect the party’s image.

            For all your declared “authority”, I’m rather amused at how you not only demonstrate incompetence in your self-proclaimed areas of “expertise”, but–even more glaring–your attempts to manipulate others through propaganda.are transparent and clumsy.

            If you ever convinced anyone at QandO on any substantive issue, I’ve never seen it. You can’t be so blind to think you’re converting people here. Thus, the only conclusion is that you’ve got a neurotic drive to come here to vandalize the place. Considering how you’re the butt of so many jokes, the object of ridicule, I simply do not understand how you imagine that whatever sick joy you get from vandalism exceeds the damage to your reputation.

            As always, I’m laughing at you, Scott.

          • Hi Elliot – I suspect we’re the only ones going back to read this thread. I post with my name because I believe what I post, and am not ashamed to have my name associated with it. While I may change my mind (sometimes being persuaded by an argument in a discussion), I post only what I truly believe. Your first charge is wrong – I said “you seem to believe…” to describe you because the word “seem” shows I am uncertain. You claim I’m “decreeing it” and “prancing around”. No, just noting what seemed to me to be the case. I’ll ignore your insults – but point out you sort of do what you accuse me of doing, decreeing you know what I feel and think, and then using that to hurl insults.

          • Oh, as for “magical” thinking – I think the material world we experience is only the surface of much deeper and far more complex reality. That may appear “magical,” but it’s really just that we don’t understand reality that well yet. I’m convinced, live by, and teach my kids a concept of karma, even though that would surely seem to you “magical” and thus foolish. Since I can’t prove my belief is accurate, I certainly can’t expect you to share it if your experience leads you to a different conclusion. I see humans as being like ants in the oval office – we only see our little world and only dimly understand the complexity of what’s going on around us. I make my choices based on an inner moral code that essentially sees all reality as inter-connected; what I do to others, I do to a part of myself. I may be wrong, but practically it has given me a nice moral code to live by, very much like the golden rule.

      • Current success stories should also be highlighted –

        And – no relation that I know of….you’ll get it if you read the link.

      • Awesome job all in all – it’s a pity there’s so little information available on them, and we are forced to take our info from hearsay and unsubstantiated/apocryphal sources.

    • Maybe you’d see this a bit clearer if we said all of the UN Peacekeepers were Catholic priests.

  • For America and Europe, the UN is a magnet for the doucheoisie. If he should seek gainful employment after his catastrophic presidency, it’s just the right place for Barack.

    For the rest of the world it’s a place where tyrants can get together, compare notes, and attack Israel.

    • I’m still absolutely convinced President Obama, who had to clean up a foreign policy and economic mess which he had inherited, is destined to be remembered a great President, one that symbolizes a period of transition. But I know you won’t agree. But he will not be at the UN – he’ll write books, gain speaking fees, and probably dedicated himself to humanitarian causes like President Carter. But the UN would be a step down, no way would he go there.

  • Well, I suppose that if they were looking for experience, they have elected the correct countries. Most analysts say it is important to have first hand knowledge of a subject if you’re going to lead the world’s response.

  • Note that once again, the UN has demonstrated it’s not even capable of policing itself with regard to being a predatory agency who’s forces sexually abuse the people they are supposed to protect.
    I make note, that’s one of the two major points of the post.

    It’s also noted it’s not the first time it’s happened and that it’s an ongoing problem.

    Based on the budgeting analysis in the attached link, the best use for the UN politicians is in moving cash from the 1st World to the lesser developed countries, and the best use of the young men of the ‘peace keeping’ forces from various countries is in the opportunity to see new places, meet new people, and rape them.

    For those who don’t have lofty credentials that give you complete mental command of all information available, a 2015 report that might prove useful (it’s 2016 this year…). Senate Testimony for Subcommittee on Multilateral International Development, Multilateral Institutions, and International Economic, Energy, and Environmental Policy
    Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate

    Snipped from the report
    “The regular sex abuse by peacekeeping personnel uncovered here and the United Nations’ appalling disregard for victims are stomach-turning, but the awful truth is that this isn’t uncommon. The UN’s instinctive response to sexual violence in its ranks—ignore, deny, cover up, dissemble—must be subjected to a truly independent commission of inquiry with total access, top to bottom, and full subpoena power.”

    No time will be wasted ‘denying claims’.

  • “You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately… Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”

    Oliver Cromwell, speaking of another useless political body.