Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

The Moral Authority of the United Nations
Posted by: Dale Franks on Tuesday, April 12, 2005

Peter Dennis is a student at NYU Law School. He also worked for the Foundation for International Dignity in the refugee camps surrounding Kenema, Sierra Leone, in 2003. What he saw there, while shocking, is not, unfortunately, surprising. We all know about the reports of sexual abuse, but Dennis writes that's only the beginning.
In fact, abuse at these camps went beyond sexual violations: Injustices of one sort or another were perpetrated by U.N. missions or their affiliated nongovernmental organizations every day in the camps I visited. Corruption was the norm, in particular the embezzlement of food and funds by NGO officials, which often left camp resources dangerously inadequate. Utterly arbitrary judicial systems in the camps subjected refugees to violent physical punishment or months in prison for trivial offenses—all at the whim of officials and in the absence of any sort of hearing.
That's the UN for you. Always there to help. And if you have a complaint about the UN's "help", well then, good luck with that.
The risk to these staff members is low in U.N. refugee camps, because peacekeepers engaged in criminal acts are immune from local prosecution. Therefore, local parties seeking justice must travel to the peacekeeper's home country. U.N. workers from countries with unresponsive legal systems, or those committing unspectacular crimes, can sleep easy. At the same time, local NGO employees who are contracted by the United Nations to work in the camps are covered by a de facto implied immunity. That is, if these individuals are identified as being connected with U.N. operations, they will probably never face charges for their actions by local authorities.
So, quis custodiet ispos custodes? Who watches the UN? Well, the UN does. But not, apparently, very well.
Yet the recent stonewalling over a series of scandals from the United Nations—from oil-for-food to a sexual harassment imbroglio involving a high U.N. official—are typical of a bureaucracy dedicated to self-preservation. This code of behavior travels rapidly down the organizational chart. The message is: Cover your tracks and the United Nations will obstruct your prosecution.

After the 2002 report documented sexual abuse, Annan's steely resolve led to exactly zero criminal prosecutions of U.N. officials for sexual abuse. I expect little difference now that refugee camp conditions have returned to the headlines. As before, Annan has delivered vague statements but prosecuted no one. It appears that the status quo reigns and that those perpetrating all sorts of abuses in refugee camps may continue undisturbed.
And this is the organization that's supposed to the font of moral authority in international affairs? Right.

And the Democrats in the Senate think John Bolton is too critical of the UN.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

You post these things to fuel my ire, don’t you?
Written By: Sharp as a Marble
Like the writer, I too lived in Sierra Leone, except that I was there in the 90’s, as a Peace Corps volunteer before the civil war.

The things that he says are probably true.

We used to joke that the only to find the UN officials was to go to the bars and look for the prostitutes.
Written By: John Rogers
To me, this also, by extension, comes down to an issue of what moral authority the Democrats have on all of this.

For decades the Democrats have remained silent as the corrupt collection of tinpot dictators that is the UN attacked the America continuously.

And of course the outlandish attacks on the US from the UN were the tip of the ’berg, as Dale points up quite well, here.

Now, someone gets appointed to the UN ambassador post that is critical of the UN, and the Democrats don’t like it.

All of which leads us to the rather logical and highly rethorical question....

Whose side are the Democrats on, anyway?
Written By: Bithead

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks