NationStates Jolt Archive


Educating UN-bashers

Ariddia
29-03-2008, 11:55
There seems to be a popular misconception out there, among the more uneducated segment of the population, that the UN is "pointless", "accomplishes nothing", and so on.

Granted, the UN has problems. Significant ones. But to say that it does nothing good is downright absurd, and amounts to either gross ignorance or perverse denialism.

This can be a factual reference thread, to point such people to the actual accomplishments of the United Nations.

It's not designed to glorify the United Nations or deny its faults. It's designed to counter-balance anti-UN ignorance through facts.

I'm not too optimistic about truth altering the prejudices of the aggressively ignorant, but here goes anyway.

A few examples:

1. Deploying more than 35 peace-keeping missions. There are presently 16 active peace-keeping forces in operation.

2. Credited with negotiating 172 peaceful settlements that have ended regional conflicts

3. The UN has enabled people in over 45 countries to participate in free and fair elections

5. UNICEF spends more than $800 million a year, primarily on immunization, health care, nutrition and basic education in 138 countries.

10. The International Court of Justice has helped settle international disputes involving territorial issues, diplomatic relations, hostage-taking, and economic rights.

11. The UN was a major factor in bringing about the downfall of the apartheid system.

12. More than 30 million refugees fleeing war, famine or persecution have received aid from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

13. Aiding Palestinian Refugees with free schooling, essential health care, relief assistance and key social services virtually without interruption. There are 2.9 million refugees in the Middle East served by UNRWA.

14. Alleviating Chronic Hunger and Rural Poverty in Developing Countries, providing credit that has benefited over 230 million people in nearly 100 developing countries.

15. The Africa Project Development Facility has helped entrepreneurs in 25 countries to find financing for new enterprises. The Facility has completed 130 projects which represent investments of $233 million and the creation of 13,000 new jobs, saving some $131 million in foreign exchange annually.

16. Promoting Women's Rights *have supported programs and projects to improve the quality of life for women in over 100 countries, including credit and training, marketing opportunities, etc.

17. Providing Safe Drinking Water * Available to 1.3 billion people in rural areas during the last decade.

18. Eradicating Smallpox* through vaccinations and monitoring. Helped wipe out polio from the Western Hemisphere, with global eradication expected soon.

19. Pressing for Universal Immunization of polio, tetanus, measles, whooping cough, diphtheria and tuberculosis * has a 80% immunization rate, saving the lives of more than 3 million children each year.

20. Reducing child mortality rates, halved since 1960, increasing the average life expectancy from 37 to 67 years.

24. Providing food to victims of emergencies * Over two million tons of food each year. 30 million people facing acute food shortages in 36 countries benefited from this assistance last year.

25. Clearing land mines - The United Nations is leading an international effort to clear land minds from Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, El Salvador, Mozambique, Rwanda and Somalia.

45. Improving education in developing countries *60% of adults in developing countries can now read and write, and 80 percent of children in these countries attend school.

46. Improving literacy for women *Raise the female literacy rate in developing countries from 36 percent in 1970 to 56 percent in 1990.

47. Safeguarding and preserving historic cultural and architectural sites *protected through the efforts of UNESCO, and international conventions have been adopted to preserve cultural property.


Etc...; see here (http://www.una-usadanecounty.org/about/index.php?category_id=1550).


Ending Smallpox & Polio. A 13-year effort by World Health Organization (WHO) succeeded in eradicating smallpox in 1980. WHO also helped wipe out polio from the Western Hemisphere.

· Universal Immunizations. [/b]In 1974, only five percent of children in developing countries were immunized against polio, tetanus, measles, whooping cough, diphtheria and tuberculosis. By 1995, as a result of the efforts of United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the WHO, there was an 80% immunization rate, saving the lives of over 3,000,000 children each year.[/b]

· Alleviating Chronic Hunger and Rural Poverty. The U.N. has provided famine relief to millions of people. The International Fund for Agricultural Development had developed a system of providing economic credit for poor and marginalized groups, benefiting over 230 million people in nearly 100 developing countries and building longer-term hunger relief.

· Improving Female Literacy. U.N. programs to help promote education and advancement for women helped raise their literacy rate in developing countries from 36% in 1970 to 56% in 1990


(link (http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/action/whyun$.htm))


As the only global institution committed to development, the UN system has bettered the lives of countless people in the poorest parts of the world through a variety of practical programmes. The UN's track record in promoting development is second to none. The UN Development Programme is on the ground in nearly 170 countries, while the UN system as a whole spends some $10 billion a year on operational activities for development - assisting refugees, the poor and the hungry, and promoting child survival, environmental protection, crime and drug control, human rights, women's equality and democracy.

(link (http://www.un.org/geninfo/ir/index.asp?id=130))


When disaster strikes, the United Nations and its agencies rush to deliver humanitarian assistance. In 2000 alone, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs launched 16 inter-agency appeals that raised more than $1.4 billion to assist 35 million people in 16 countries and regions. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has been providing international protection and assistance to over 22 million people annually - refugees as well as a growing number of internally displaced persons. The World Food Programme has regularly delivered one third of the world's emergency food assistance, saving millions of lives.

Disaster prevention seeks to reduce the vulnerability of societies to disaster, and to address their man-made causes. Early warning is especially important for short-term prevention, and United Nations agencies are increasing their capacity in this area: the Food and Agriculture Organization monitors impending famines, while the World Meteorological Organization carries out tropical cyclone forecasting and drought monitoring. Preparedness is equally vital, and the United Nations Development Programme assists disaster-prone countries in developing contingency planning and other preparedness measures.


(link (http://www.un.org/ha/moreha.htm))

The UN saves lives.

The world would be a much worse place without it.
Kilobugya
29-03-2008, 12:04
Yeah, I agree. The UN is far from perfect, and things like veto rights are not acceptable, but UN agencies like WHO, UNICEF, ... do a *lot* of wonderful things with very limited funding... if we (rich countries) were more eager to support than to build bombs, the world would be a much better place, and at the end a much safer place, because violence feeds on social problems and sufferings.
Adunabar
29-03-2008, 12:08
How about the Dutch peacekeepers in Serbia in the 90s who weren't allowed to use their guns and had to watch a bunch of Muslims be carted off to be killed.
Ferrous Oxide
29-03-2008, 12:12
The UN is still rubbish. At least the League of Nations would never have put up with a group of their members subjugating the rest.
Xirnium
29-03-2008, 12:14
This article in the Economist is a little old but made very interesting reading.

The rewards of beavering away (http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10438482)

ON DECEMBER 31st African Union troops in Darfur exchanged green berets for blue ones. That did not make their job of policing Sudan's war-wracked western region much easier, but it signalled the formal creation of what is set to be the world's biggest peacekeeping operation, with 26,000 personnel, under the joint aegis of the AU and the United Nations. A fortnight earlier, 187 countries at a UN conference in Bali, including China and the United States, unexpectedly agreed to begin talks on a global effort to save the planet from climate change.

...

[On Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon] But even initial critics admit that the inscrutable Korean is far from being an American patsy. Indeed, he has skilfully exploited his links with his two most powerful backers to push through extremely difficult agreements on both Darfur (opposed by China) and climate change (opposed by both China and America).



Contrary to expectations, Mr Ban has also been surprisingly good on human-rights issues. Although he can do nothing about the disastrous new Human Rights Council, which was set up before he took over, he has been pressing ahead with the idea of an international “responsibility to protect” civilians from genocide and other atrocities when their own governments are unable or unwilling to do so. Following that principle's reluctant adoption by the UN summit of world leaders in 2005, it risked being still-born. But Mr Ban is now seeking to resuscitate it, pushing through the appointment of a full-time senior adviser on genocide and other atrocities along with a part-time adviser on the “responsibility to protect”—despite initial fierce opposition from Russia as well as many developing states who object to the violation of their sovereignty by do-gooding Westerners. All senior UN appointments have to be approved by a majority of the General Assembly. In recent weeks Mr Ban has shown that he is sensitive to individual tragedy as well as to atrocities on a larger scale. He was visibly overcome with emotion when comforting the families of 17 UN staff who were killed by a terrorist bomb in Algiers.

...

He has nevertheless won widespread respect. As many staffers and ambassadors have noted, what this seemingly grey man lacks in charisma, he makes up for in industry, a sharp mind and sheer tenacity. He gets on the phone and badgers world leaders relentlessly. That is how he got his breakthrough at Bali. That is how he convinced China to allow the UN flag to fly in Darfur.
Neu Leonstein
29-03-2008, 12:21
How about the Dutch peacekeepers in Serbia in the 90s who weren't allowed to use their guns and had to watch a bunch of Muslims be carted off to be killed.
It wasn't quite that simple. That doesn't absolve them from what ultimately was a massive failure, but fact of the matter is that 400 dudes with small arms surrounded by Serb forces and getting little to no air support from HQ were never going to stop it from happening. They turned out to be little more than hostages.

But that was a result of the way UNPROFOR was structured, which was due to, you guessed it, UN governments agreeing on rules that were stupid.

The UN is still rubbish. At least the League of Nations would never have put up with a group of their members subjugating the rest.
That's because the League wouldn't have been able to. Whenever a rule wasn't to someone's satisfaction, they just quit the organisation.

WWII followed, and the consensus was that maybe a little bit of strictness is a good idea.
Ariddia
29-03-2008, 12:36
Yeah, I agree. The UN is far from perfect, and things like veto rights are not acceptable, but UN agencies like WHO, UNICEF, ... do a *lot* of wonderful things with very limited funding... if we (rich countries) were more eager to support than to build bombs, the world would be a much better place, and at the end a much safer place, because violence feeds on social problems and sufferings.

Exactly.

How about the Dutch peacekeepers in Serbia in the 90s who weren't allowed to use their guns and had to watch a bunch of Muslims be carted off to be killed.

NL has already given you a fairly detailed reply to that, so I won't bother. Other than to ask whether you're agreeing with me, or whether you're simply missing the point. Did you read the OP? Yes, the UN has flaws. It is also an incredible force for good, ensuring and protecting peace, providing vital humanitarian assistance, saving lives, as well as contributing to development and education worldwide.

The UN is still rubbish.

Thank you for proving my point. Namely, that even when the facts point to the good as well as to the flaws, there will still be people like you who are incapable of responding in any other way.
Kryozerkia
29-03-2008, 13:43
I believe there is a difference between generalising about the whole UN and criticising its stupid actions... ie: its asinine resolution on not bashing religions.
VietnamSounds
29-03-2008, 13:56
Thanks for posting this. I didn't know the UN did anything. All I was told in school is that the UN was formed to try to prevent another world war.
Fishutopia
29-03-2008, 14:20
Most of those who bag the UN are the crazy right wing fringe "all tax is theft", etc, whose morality seems to come down to "if you can't afford to live, then die, unless a charity chooses to help you." The UN to them, seems to be the biggest tax funded, no return institution ever.

I don't need to go over the good things the UN does, someone else did a great job of that. Even what many people would think are "small things", such as reducing Malaria, is actually a Huge thing.

The bit that gets the back up of most of those I speak of in the 1st paragraph is failed peace keeping missions. This has nothing to do with the UN, it has to do with member states. UN peace keeping missions are often hobbled with ridiculously strict mandates that limits them greatly, not to mention lack of money due to member states not paying up.

It's amazing how quickly the US ponied up it's backpay, when it wanted the UN to rubber stamp it's war on Iraq. Also amazing, how quickly it got back in to debt, when the rubber stamp was not forthcoming.
Call to power
29-03-2008, 15:31
one of the better things to come out of WWII one must say especially as looking at my nations veto power compared to its size it easily makes me one of the more powerful humans on Earth-ish

course the UN has only rather recently fallen from grace really and considering its a byproduct of 40's good feelings towards the fellow man one has to wonder its future

The UN is still rubbish. At least the League of Nations would never have put up with a group of their members subjugating the rest.

:D
Marrakech II
29-03-2008, 16:03
Thanks for posting this. I didn't know the UN did anything. All I was told in school is that the UN was formed to try to prevent another world war.

That's all they taught about the orginization? What school was this?
[NS]I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS
29-03-2008, 16:44
Looking at things from a purely selfish perspective, I could say the vast majority of these points are of no direct concern to my country. As a rich country that is very capable of defending itself militarily, the UK could probably afford to do without most of this. Particularly the refugee stuff, as we get a lot of them settling here at public expense.

one of the better things to come out of WWII one must say especially as looking at my nations veto power compared to its size it easily makes me one of the more powerful humans on Earth-ish
Hehe, I'll agree with that. I honestly don't know why anybody in this country would suggest getting rid of the veto, we do so well out of it!
Ariddia
29-03-2008, 17:54
Thanks for posting this. I didn't know the UN did anything. All I was told in school is that the UN was formed to try to prevent another world war.

You're very welcome.
Forsakia
29-03-2008, 21:06
The UN doesn't get nearly enough credit for the good work it does.
Mad hatters in jeans
29-03-2008, 21:11
That's all they taught about the orginization? What school was this?

hell in my school i didn't find out about the UN until i heard about them disagreeing with the invasion into Iraq or something like that, so my school didn't tell me it existed to do much about anything.
Knights of Liberty
29-03-2008, 21:20
The UN is still rubbish. At least the League of Nations would never have put up with a group of their members subjugating the rest.

Yep, I agree. The League of Nations really stopped Hitler.


Oh wait....
Knights of Liberty
29-03-2008, 21:23
Most Americans who rip on the UN are just pissed that they didnt follow us into the fuck up that was Iraq.


ZOMG TEH UN DNT HELP US THEY R TEH SUX!!!111!!!1
Gauthier
29-03-2008, 21:23
How about the Dutch peacekeepers in Serbia in the 90s who weren't allowed to use their guns and had to watch a bunch of Muslims be carted off to be killed.

Today they'd be condemned in the court of Western Popular Opinion if they tried to use their guns to keep said Muslims from being carted off to be killed.
Knights of Liberty
29-03-2008, 21:24
Today they'd be condemned in the court of Western Popular Opinion if they tried to use their guns to keep said Muslims from being carted off to be killed.

Indeed, in America Sean Hannity and those who think like him would call them terrorists sympathizers.
Marrakech II
29-03-2008, 22:19
hell in my school i didn't find out about the UN until i heard about them disagreeing with the invasion into Iraq or something like that, so my school didn't tell me it existed to do much about anything.

J.C. what the hell are we teaching kids these days?!
Trans Fatty Acids
29-03-2008, 22:40
Speaking of right-wing fringe nuttiness, I just got through reading "Left Behind" so this thread is a welcome brain-scrubbing. Thanks to all!
Imota
29-03-2008, 23:03
The UN is like a little kid: It makes some mistakes and does some things it shouldn't, but it's hard to deny that its heart is in the right place.

Keep up the good work.
Llewdor
29-03-2008, 23:04
1. Deploying more than 35 peace-keeping missions. There are presently 16 active peace-keeping forces in operation.
That they're there isn't really compelling data. Do they do any net good?
2. Credited with negotiating 172 peaceful settlements that have ended regional conflicts
Are you asserting that these conflicts would not otherwise have ended?
3. The UN has enabled people in over 45 countries to participate in free and fair elections
Here you assume that democracy has value.
5. UNICEF spends more than $800 million a year, primarily on immunization, health care, nutrition and basic education in 138 countries.
UNICEF is the one part of the UN I'm pretty sure does good things. But, I'm not convinced that thsose good things would go undone without the UN doing them.
10. The International Court of Justice has helped settle international disputes involving territorial issues, diplomatic relations, hostage-taking, and economic rights.
International law is a sham.
11. The UN was a major factor in bringing about the downfall of the apartheid system.
Is South Africa better off as a result of having done so?
12. More than 30 million refugees fleeing war, famine or persecution have received aid from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.
Does this aid enourage war famine and persecution by protecting those who cause them from consequences?
13. Aiding Palestinian Refugees with free schooling, essential health care, relief assistance and key social services virtually without interruption. There are 2.9 million refugees in the Middle East served by UNRWA.
See above.
14. Alleviating Chronic Hunger and Rural Poverty in Developing Countries, providing credit that has benefited over 230 million people in nearly 100 developing countries.
Does this relief discourage or delay self-sufficiency?
15. The Africa Project Development Facility has helped entrepreneurs in 25 countries to find financing for new enterprises. The Facility has completed 130 projects which represent investments of $233 million and the creation of 13,000 new jobs, saving some $131 million in foreign exchange annually.
That's $18,000 of investment per job created. In poor countries. I couldn't be that inefficient if I tried.
16. Promoting Women's Rights *have supported programs and projects to improve the quality of life for women in over 100 countries, including credit and training, marketing opportunities, etc.
I can't really object to schooling, but I might object to meddling in foreign cultures.
17. Providing Safe Drinking Water * Available to 1.3 billion people in rural areas during the last decade.

18. Eradicating Smallpox* through vaccinations and monitoring. Helped wipe out polio from the Western Hemisphere, with global eradication expected soon.

19. Pressing for Universal Immunization of polio, tetanus, measles, whooping cough, diphtheria and tuberculosis * has a 80% immunization rate, saving the lives of more than 3 million children each year.

20. Reducing child mortality rates, halved since 1960, increasing the average life expectancy from 37 to 67 years.
Are these really good things? Wealthy countries can afford longer lifespans. Educated countries can afford lower child mortality rates (because they have fewer chldren). These programs could well be crippling poor countries with expenses they can't afford.
24. Providing food to victims of emergencies * Over two million tons of food each year. 30 million people facing acute food shortages in 36 countries benefited from this assistance last year.
See my responses to 12 and 13.
25. Clearing land mines - The United Nations is leading an international effort to clear land minds from Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, El Salvador, Mozambique, Rwanda and Somalia.
I don't have a problem with that.
45. Improving education in developing countries *60% of adults in developing countries can now read and write, and 80 percent of children in these countries attend school.

46. Improving literacy for women *Raise the female literacy rate in developing countries from 36 percent in 1970 to 56 percent in 1990.

47. Safeguarding and preserving historic cultural and architectural sites *protected through the efforts of UNESCO, and international conventions have been adopted to preserve cultural property.
You're meddling in foreign cultures again.
The UN saves lives.

The world would be a much worse place without it.
You haven't shown that.
Mirkana
29-03-2008, 23:38
Though I agree with many points of the UN-bashers, I don't think the UN is useless. I think it's way overdue for major reform. The UN does plenty of good, and has way too much potential to be discarded.

For one thing, we need more representation on the Security Council. Then we need to put in standards for membership of the Human Rights Council. Take some respected survey on human rights worldwide. The HRC is made up of the top 15 scorers.

Also, UN peacekeeping missions need teeth. Razor-sharp teeth. They need to be a credible fighting force. Which probably means someone will have to provide more than just infantry. I'm talking tanks. Helicopters. Next time the UN sends a peacekeeping force to a coastal country, the US should not send infantry - let the Europeans do that. Instead, the US should send a carrier.
UN Protectorates
30-03-2008, 00:54
That they're there isn't really compelling data. Do they do any net good?

The fact that there are currently more UN-led peacekeeping missions around the world than there have ever been before is very compelling. Namely because many of the conflicts in question are within African and Asian nations that have been going on for decades. That fact that more and more combatants are seeking peaceful resolution of these extended conflicts, through the UN peacebuilding process, shows that not only are long, bloody and largely ignored wars being resolved, there is a great amount of trust and respect for the UN as a impartial peacebroker.

Are you asserting that these conflicts would not otherwise have ended?

They'd certainly have taken longer to resolve otherwise, and with many more wounded, dead and refugee's.

Here you assume that democracy has value.
The merits of democracy will have to be discussed elsewhere.

UNICEF is the one part of the UN I'm pretty sure does good things. But, I'm not convinced that thsose good things would go undone without the UN doing them.

Yes they would. The UN is currently the only truly impartial international organisation capable of supporting operations such as those of UNESCO without them becoming subject to individual national or corporate agendas.

International law is a sham.
Again, too extensive for me to cover here.

Is South Africa better off as a result of having done so? The South Africans I speak to seem to think so.

Does this aid enourage war famine and persecution by protecting those who cause them from consequences?
Sorry, could you elaborate a little?

Does this relief discourage or delay self-sufficiency?

Don't let yourself believe the UN trucks just dish out bags full of food and money. There's only so much they can do, just like most other national, corporate and charity aid organisations.

That's $18,000 of investment per job created. In poor countries. I couldn't be that inefficient if I tried.

Pray tell, how much would you invest?

Are these really good things? Wealthy countries can afford longer lifespans. Educated countries can afford lower child mortality rates (because they have fewer chldren). These programs could well be crippling poor countries with expenses they can't afford.

Are you actually advocating letting people die for the sake of the economy?

Also, UN peacekeeping missions need teeth. Razor-sharp teeth. They need to be a credible fighting force. Which probably means someone will have to provide more than just infantry. I'm talking tanks. Helicopters. Next time the UN sends a peacekeeping force to a coastal country, the US should not send infantry - let the Europeans do that. Instead, the US should send a carrier.

UNIFIL has armoured, airborne and significant naval capabilities similiar to what you would recommend. However, a popular misconception is that UN forces ought to be "fighting forces" bearing great fangs, with full military capabilities, fighting the bad guys and saving the day. The reason this is not already so is because it is unnecessary, and not in the spirit of a peacekeeping force. Timur Goksel, former spokesman of UNIFIL:

"UNIFIL came here in 1978. We were, because at that time there was no Hezbollah here, accused of being sympathetic to Palestinians. A peacekeeping force does not come here with pre-set enemies. There is no enemy in a peacekeeping force. UNIFIL is a peacekeeping force. It's not an Israeli combat force or an anti-terror force, as they would like it to be. As long as we don't serve their direct interests, they are going to denigrate it as much as they can."

That doesn't mean UN missions should always be restricted to light infantry with small arms, of course. That is a lesson learned in Bosnia.

UN missions require only the means to effectively defend themselves and to protect innocents. They don't require enough equipment to wage military campaigns, because that's not what they are there for.
Llewdor
30-03-2008, 01:10
Yes they would. The UN is currently the only truly impartial international organisation capable of supporting operations such as those of UNESCO without them becoming subject to individual national or corporate agendas.
So instead it is subject to the UN agenda. Is that better?
The South Africans I speak to seem to think so.
The South Africans I speak to do not. But then, they left South Africa when the new government took away their farms.
Sorry, could you elaborate a little?
Be keeping the future workforce of the country alive, by easing the suffering of those affected by the uncaring rulers, you're aiding those rulers by reducing the negative impacts their thoughtless actions will have on their future endeavours.
Pray tell, how much would you invest?
It isn't about how much you invest; it's about how well you invest. If this UN investment costs $18K per job created, is it worth it?

The for-profit micro-credit industry in Asia invests far smaller amounts per job created. That's something worth supporting.
Are you actually advocating letting people die for the sake of the economy?
I'm advocating letting the economies develop sustainably. You might save millions of lives now, but that those people are alive can create huge future problems. You could be causing net suffering by interfering in the development.

So yes, I am advocating letting people die for the economy, because the economy is what's going to keep even more people from dying in the future.

There's an optimal level of death in any society, and that level is not zero.
Llewdor
30-03-2008, 01:13
Also, UN peacekeeping missions need teeth. Razor-sharp teeth. They need to be a credible fighting force. Which probably means someone will have to provide more than just infantry.
Even with that infantry, the UN's rules on engagement often need to be broken by their own troops in order to get anything done. The Battle of Medak Pocket is an excellent example. The Serbs and Croatians were gaming the UN rules of engagement to move the UN forces around as they saw fit, and not until one of the UN units decided not to flee indirect fire, and instead fought back, was a cease-fire achieved.
UN Protectorates
30-03-2008, 01:25
Even with that infantry, the UN's rules on engagement often need to be broken by their own troops in order to get anything done. The Battle of Medak Pocket is an excellent example. The Serbs and Croatians were gaming the UN rules of engagement to move the UN forces around as they saw fit, and not until one of the UN units decided not to flee indirect fire, and instead fought back, was a cease-fire achieved.

The former UN RoA is irrelevant to peacekeeping missions today. At the time of the Bosnian and Rwandan conflicts, peacekeeping was still in its infancy, and UN soldiers were advised to remain effectively neutral, and not to fire back until absolutely necessary.

This was a horrible mistake on the part of Secretary-General Boutros Boutros Ghali, his administration and the heads of national governments, who were scared to death of the thought of body bags coming home.

Nowadays, UN peacekeeping practises have been reformed, and a set of RoA based on the principle of impartiality, not neutrality, have been established. UN troops are given clearance to fire upon combatants who breach agreements between warring factions, and those who commit war crimes. In Haiti and the DRC in particular, UN troops have been successful in applying lethal force against criminal gangs and other combatants who disturb the peace and fuel conflict.
Fudk
30-03-2008, 02:01
So instead it is subject to the UN agenda. Is that better?

Yes. It is, because the UN doesnt really have any other interests other than making the world a better place, whearas Countries and Companies most certainley do.

The South Africans I speak to do not. But then, they left South Africa when the new government took away their farms.

The South Africans you speak to profited on the backs of millions of poor, opressed people, if what they supposedley said about apartheid is true. That has the double benifit of also making them selfish and callous. It wasn't their farm in the first place, for they were merely born into ownership, while poor blacks did all the work.

Be keeping the future workforce of the country alive, by easing the suffering of those affected by the uncaring rulers, you're aiding those rulers by reducing the negative impacts their thoughtless actions will have on their future endeavours.

See that democracy thing earlier. Plus, theres this thing called conjecturing, in which people think things like "Wow, my life would absolutley suck becasue of *insert rulers name here* if the UN wasn't here." Just because the people don't suffer the rulers actions as harshly doesnt mean that they dont have a pretty good idea what it would be like if they did. This causes them to still hate the rulers. And in most cases, the rulers really don't give a fuck about the people anyway: see Zimbabwe or the DPRK for a good example.

It isn't about how much you invest; it's about how well you invest. If this UN investment costs $18K per job created, is it worth it?

The for-profit micro-credit industry in Asia invests far smaller amounts per job created. That's something worth supporting.

Thats when we get to the "Maximum good for the Minimum number" theroy. Trouble is, its not always possible. Agreed, the UN does need to get a bit more streamlined. But the micro-credit banks have a much higher rate of failure

I'm advocating letting the economies develop sustainably. You might save millions of lives now, but that those people are alive can create huge future problems. You could be causing net suffering by interfering in the development.

It doesn't always have to be the "hard way," you know. Look at Europe after the Marshall plan. What you are saying is that you would have left it to "naturally grow back from its war-decimated state." Yet the Marshall Plan created jobs by the thousands and got Europe back on its feet. Are you telling me that the worlds economy today would have benifited, ignoring the Cold War and the "Red Europe", if the Marshall plan had never been implemented?

So yes, I am advocating letting people die for the economy, because the economy is what's going to keep even more people from dying in the future.

There's an optimal level of death in any society, and that level is not zero.

What makes you think that there aren't more areas that we can live on? There is that giant thing hanging up there in the sky, you know.
HSH Prince Eric
30-03-2008, 03:10
I don't understand the big deal people make about UNICEF and the other charities.

There's been so much corruption proven, not just alleged or unknown, that it's hard to believe that anyone doesn't think that any private charity organization would have done more with far less money in the areas' that they have gone to.

The UN is a racket.
Neu Leonstein
30-03-2008, 08:48
There's been so much corruption proven, not just alleged or unknown, that it's hard to believe that anyone doesn't think that any private charity organization would have done more with far less money in the areas' that they have gone to.
A few fun facts. Again from The Economist, if Ariddia permits...
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10853611
“THE biggest financial scandal ever.” That is what one American senator called the shenanigans over the UN's oil-for-food programme.

[...]

In its final report in October 2005, a committee of inquiry, headed by Paul Volcker, a former chairman of America's Federal Reserve, found that 2,253 firms, many of them household names, had made illegal payments totalling $1.8 billion to the Saddam regime.

That was not quite the world-beating scam claimed by some: the diversion of less than 2% of the value of transactions amounting to nearly $100 billion ($64 billion in oil sales, and humanitarian purchases worth $35 billion) looks almost squeaky-clean by the commercial standards of some energy-rich states.

[...]

The oddity in hindsight is that most of the malefactors seem to have been businessmen, not members of the UN bureaucracy, which many American congressmen denounced as a nest of corruption. So far only two UN officials have been charged with oil-for-food offences—Mr Yakovlev, and Benon Sevan, who ran the programme. Charged with taking nearly $160,000 in bribes, he has fled to his native Cyprus. Arguably, the real culprits at the UN were not its officials but the Security Council, whose five permanent members invented a scheme that was wide open to abuse but who failed to impose the necessary safeguards.
Magdha
30-03-2008, 08:59
I can sum up why I hate the UN with just one word:

Katanga.