Entry: Exploding Liberal Myths 5: The Moral United Nations Saturday, June 26, 2004



The Left's dogmatic insistence that the answer to all of America's foreign policy questions lie within the hallowed halls of the United Nations continues to bewilder the clear-thinking. The persistent belief that the UN is somehow the world's "moral compass" is due more to hopes and dreams than fact and reason. The UN's record of incompetence and corruption is truly mind-boggling, and it seems to grow every day.

The most well-known moral failure of the UN in recent memory took place in Rwanda, in 1994. UN peacekeeping troops did nothing to prevent Rwandans from being slaughtered in a spasm of "racial cleansing." The UN did worse than nothing -- Canadian General Romeo Dallaire was ordered to withdraw UN troops as the killing began. Soldiers and civilians of the Hutu majority killed more than 500,000 minority Tutsis and politically moderate Hutus in 100 days; an estimated 800,000 were murdered altogether. According to UNICEF Executive Director Carol Bellamy, "Ten years later, the children of Rwanda are still suffering the consequences of a conflict caused entirely by adults… For them, the genocide is not just a historical event, but an inescapable part of daily life today and tomorrow." Now the UN is repeating its Rwanda apathy in the Sudan, where Arab militia are murdering the inhabitants of Darfur (the western province) by the thousands. The Sudanese government -- dominated by the country's Arab minority -- denies that any ethnic-related violence is taking place against members of the Zaghawa, Fur and Masalit tribes. Vice President Ali Osman Taha accused the West of fabricating the situation. A statement from Andrew Natsios, head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, estimated that "[i]f we get relief in, we could lose a third of a million. If we do not, it could be a million." The government of Sudan is obstructing the flow of aid to the people of Darfur. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he "cannot call the killing a genocide even though there have been massive violations of international humanitarian law." Apparently the phrase that became the UN's motto after Rwanda, "Never Again," meant "Until Next Time."

The UN's failures are not limited to inaction in the face of genocide. The UN's mismanagement -- to the point of complete bungling -- of the Balkans is appalling. After more than five years, the region is still in chaos. "The vagueness of the national status of Kosovo is a strain on people. Various nationalistic movements see this kind of a situation as insulting," said Harri Holkeri, the chief U.N. envoy in Kosovo. Racial violence is still a constant threat. Refugees still live in camps, afraid to return home. The people are so unhappy with the conditions there that they voted their former dictator Slobodan Milosevic a seat in Parliament, even as he sits in jail in The Hague.

As far as morals are concerned, the UN certainly has no right to claim the high ground. Sexual predators thinly disguised as UNHCR aid workers took advantage of their positions of power in West African nations to demand sex from children as the price of aid for their families. The BBC reported in 2002 that workers in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea had been exploiting those people who came to them for help. Now the sexual abuse in return for protection and food has moved to the Congo, where the 4,000 UN peacekeepers stationed in Bunia have fathered an unknown number of illegitimate children on unmarried girls. The head of the UN in Bunia, Dominique McAdams, said that she "requested evidence and proof on this matter, but I have not received anything from anyone." In the late 1990's, UN police in Bosnia were running a sex slave/forced prostitution ring. When it was discovered and reported by American policewoman Kathryn Bolkovac, she was fired from DynCorp, the company the UN had worked through to hire her.

The UN is also the seat of world-class fraud and corruption. The massive oil-for-food/oil voucher scandal (often nicknamed "UNSCAM" or  "oil-for-fraud") is only just beginning to make a dent in the "mainstream" news. Powerful and influential figures in UN member states, especially France and Russia, received millions of dollars in discounted oil vouchers, which could be sold on the open market. The list of 270 recipients (which covers just the year 1999) includes politicians, religious figures, and heads of corporations, many of whom figured prominently in the opposition to the liberation of Iraq. One name that stands out on the list is that of UN Undersecretary General Benon Sevan, head of the oil-for-food program that was set up in 1996 to guarantee that humanitarian aid reached the Iraqi people through the UN's sanctions. The UN itself oversaw each transaction, and took a 2.2% administrative fee, amounting to $1.2 billion over the years. Under UN mismanagement, deliberate or not, Saddam Hussein managed to siphon off over $10 billion with which to buy palaces, illegal weapons, and the United Nations.

Workers at the UN are well aware of the corruption surrounding them, but accept it as the only way to advance their careers. Deloitte Consulting LLC recently released the findings of the United Nations Organizational Integrity Survey 2004, which compiled responses of UN staff to a variety of questions concerning morals, integrity and organisational corruption. Of some 18,000 UN workers worldwide, about a third responded to the questions. The incredible results included such insights as, "Staff members feel unprotected when reporting violations of codes of conduct," by 46% unfavorable to 12% favorable responses. 65% of UN staff reported that they have observed breaches of ethical conduct. Only 15% agree that breaches are reported and 17% agree that they are investigated. 44% believe reporting violations is "career limiting." I have a feeling that Ms. Bolkovac would have agreed.

So this is the repository of moral superiority in the Western world, the organisation that Liberals feel uses its power more responsibly than the US. Even without debating the insanity of putting Libya in charge of the Human Rights Commission or Iraq in charge of the 2003 Conference on Disarmament (as was scheduled before Iraq was liberated a few months before), the UN is no more than the ultimate old-boy network of bribery and dishonesty. Sexual abuse, underhanded scandals, fraud, mass corruption and ethical breaches of all kinds permeate the United Nations while it pretends to hold a position of moral ascendancy. Putting the United States under its control, as many on the Left would do, would be just like having Bill Clinton back in the White House. Permanently.

Exploding Liberal Myths 11: Home Spying Hogwash 
Exploding Liberal Myths 10: The Plame Name Game
Exploding Liberal Myths 9: The Separation of Church and State 
Exploding Liberal Myths 8: The Nazi Meme 
Exploding Liberal Myths 7: Fidel Castro, Demigod?
Exploding Liberal Myths 6: A Less Safe Post-Iraq
Exploding Liberal Myths 4: Runaway Global Warming
Exploding Liberal Myths 3: Outsourcing Woes
Exploding Liberal Myths 2: The Eeevil PATRIOT Act
Exploding Liberal Myths 1: Nigerian Uranium  

UPDATE (28 June 04): The Washington Post is finally reporting on the Sudan situation. Representative Frank R. Wolf (R-VA) and Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) recently visited a refugee camp. Perhaps they can get some help to those people before it's too late.

   21 comments

Jamie from Alabama
June 26, 2004   04:57 PM PDT
 
Its time for the U.N. to go. And if it doesn't fall apart under the weight of all of the scandals (don't forget the expose book that was just published), then we should at least get them out of New York or stop letting them inhabit the place for free. Let them move to Europe, let them pay for their own digs (or get the French, Germans or Russians to do it). The U.S has propped the U.N. up for far too long, considering the fact that the members tend to go against us every chance they get.
Christopher Taylor
June 28, 2004   12:04 PM PDT
 
Just an addendum to Liberal Myth 1:

in the Financial Times June 27th there's this story about a breakin at Niger's embassy in Rome, apparently after documents regarding Uranium sales.

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1087373295039&p=1012571727085

And I don't know if you have the Hoystory bit on O'Niell's admitting there WAS uranium probably being bought in Niger in his book either.
Rob
June 28, 2004   09:49 PM PDT
 
The UN has worn out its welcome on US soil. Time to send them packing to Pyongyang where it seems all the tinpot dictators would be happiest. Get the UN out of the US!
Jamie from Alabama
June 28, 2004   09:59 PM PDT
 
There is this house that I pass on my way to work that has had a sign in their yard for the last 10 or 15 years = it says "Get the U.S. out of the U.N."


I guess we are a little slow on the uptake.
Owen
June 29, 2004   07:10 PM PDT
 
First - just so you understand where I am coming from, I think this piece on the UN is pretty much right on overall. THe UN has failed by becoming a bureaucracy that any agenda can derail pretty much at will. Of course, as a liberal - a real liberal - I still believe in its ideal and that a worldwide organization of nations is necesary.

More importantly, since there isn't a place to leave a comment on your laughable 'perspective' by Joe Marianni, I'll leave it here. Does that 50 million number include the people who were killed so they could be 'free'? How does he get 50 million? The population of Iraq BEFORE the invasion was considerably lower than that.

There are so many things wrong with this nasty little piece of propoganda and invective that it ultimately casts the whole blog into doubt.

And that little 'opinion' about free speech. Nice of you to go head to head with the Supreme Court on that one, but they already firmly stated that stopping money donations was the same thing as stopping free speech.
JM
June 29, 2004   08:52 PM PDT
 
See what I mean when I say that Liberals seem to have no use for facts?

>How does he get 50 million?

Population of Afghanistan as of 2002: 27,755,775
Population of Iraq as of 2003: 24,683,313
Total: 52,439,088

So you see, I underestimated the number of people GW Bush freed from totalitarian dictatorships by 2.4 million, but that number should account for the number of people who didn't want the opportunity to live in freedom.
(Population figures taken from the CIA World Factbook.)

>nasty little piece of propoganda
>and invective

Whoa, this isn't Michael Moore's blog.

>they already firmly stated that
>stopping money donations was
>the same thing as stopping free
>speech

Here in America, we have the freedom to express our own opinions, even to the point of (gasp!) disagreeing with a branch of the government!!! In other words, the Supreme Court is wrong. Today, they decided that protecting children from Web pornography violates free speech as well. Guess what? They're wrong about that, too.
Jamie from Alabama
June 29, 2004   10:25 PM PDT
 
You tell him. Apparently this guy hasn't been to your blog too often, else he would realize that you base your comments on facts, unlike libs who spout any old thing to support themselves.

JM
June 29, 2004   10:27 PM PDT
 
On the other hand, he did say, "I think this piece on the UN is pretty much right on overall," so he can't be all bad. :)
Jamie from Alabama
June 29, 2004   10:36 PM PDT
 
yeah, I think he just did to sneak up on you. Besides, its too hard to deny what the U.N. has become, its all over the news. The NYT doesn't sing their praises.

I heard that on one of the Dem sites they are telling people how to call the conservative talk shows and start out with something like "Well, I used to like Bush and I voted for him, but...." and then proceed to bash GW and his policies. Wonder if they have them going to conservative blogs and doing something similar? I KNOW, ITS A VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY!!!!! OH NO!
JM
June 30, 2004   05:54 AM PDT
 
Actually, Jamie, they've been doing that for over a year. See "More Liberal 'Rules' for Arguing" #7: Wear Hawk's Clothing at http://www.useless-knowledge.com/columnists/joemariani/article24.html :)
Jamie
June 30, 2004   08:37 AM PDT
 
So there IS a big left-wing conspiracy? What, Air America isn't giving them what they need - a place to vent their venom, so they try to hijack conservative shows?

I heard this morning that on CSPAN they had people calling in saying stuff like "We won't go into the Sudan because there is no oil for us to take". Wonder if that is why the Clinton admin ignored what happened in Rwanda back in 1994? Besides, I thought that we were supposed to wait for the U.N. to tell us when and what to do? The U.N. isn't going to do anything, I guess there is no "Oil for Food" program there for them to exploit?
JM
June 30, 2004   02:31 PM PDT
 
I don't think I'd dignify it by calling it anything so organised or planned as a conspiracy, but I've seen it a LOT on various message boards. And lying seems okay with these people, as long as they get what they want. Remember what that idiot Moby told his supporters? He told them to deliberately spread a lie that he KNEW was a lie! From NY Daily News:

Moby suggests that it's possible to seed doubt among Bush's far-right supporters on the Web.

"You target his natural constituencies," says the Grammy-nominated techno-wizard. "For example, you can go on all the pro-life chat rooms and say you're an outraged right-wing voter and that you know that George Bush drove an ex-girlfriend to an abortion clinic and paid for her to get an abortion.

"Then you go to an anti-immigration Web site chat room and ask, 'What's all this about George Bush proposing amnesty for illegal aliens?'"

Moby didn't claim that he believed the abortion story.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/162659p-142554c.html
Jamie from Alabama
June 30, 2004   09:32 PM PDT
 
OH, I knew that, I was making fun of Hillary and her "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" theory.....
Owen
July 1, 2004   11:01 PM PDT
 
wow - you confuse opinion with law, you confuse an elected theocracy with a dictatorship, you confuse two occupied states with democracies.

And, it turns out that the only reason you know about all these abuses by the highly immoral UN is because they themselves are investigating and dealing with them in the public eye. A nice contrast with Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay really. Be nice to see the US admit they did something wrong and then investigate it in the public eye.

Just FYI - literally every single 'fact' you have quoted in your original piece AND in your comments is distorted, misleading, wrong or a flat out lie. But don't let that bother your small-minded, ignorant, pusillanimous, bigoted, mean, nasty, skanky, tortured, illogical, weak - and I should add, losing - brainstem.
Jamie from Alabama
July 1, 2004   11:09 PM PDT
 
Oh, Owen, you are such a silver tongued devil. And I really love all the facts you quoted to back up YOUR statements. And you used such big words! I'm so impressed. lol





JM
July 1, 2004   11:50 PM PDT
 
Owen, you make yourself look worse with every lying, insulting, baseless, invented, partisan attack you type. I don't put up with that kind of garbage. If you want to discuss facts and figures, fine; if you want to make third-grade schoolyard taunts you can do it elsewhere. I notice you didn't even TRY to refute the facts I included in my article; you attacked me personally instead. (Ho-hum, like I haven't seen THAT tactic before.) The UN is not investigating or explaining those abuses; I found out about them by reading non-"mainstream" media. By contrast, the abuses by a few soldiers at Abu Ghraib was IMMEDIATELY stopped, investigated, reported to the press and punished. Quite different from the UN coverups of large-scale abuses.
Laura
July 3, 2004   03:12 PM PDT
 
I understand there are some lawyers asking that the UN monitor the elections in November. Does this mean that if a state like Florida votes Republican that we have to go through all those rigged recounts, hanging chads, other questionable chads, and in addition throw out the military vote? I trust the UN even less than I trust liberal lawyers. The Dems have this uncanny ability to turn their lies, distortions , slanders and subterfuge around and make it appear as though it is others who are the guilty ones. Case in point - their attempt to steal the 2004 election by changing the Florida vote.
Jamie from Alabama
July 4, 2004   01:00 AM PDT
 
Laura,
It was some of our illustrious elected officials who sent a letter to the U.N. asking for that. They are just setting the wheels in motion to protest the outcome of the election in November. And, no doubt, but the thought into many peoples heads that the election will be rigged, tampered with, etc. And also to remind loyal Dems that Bush "stole" the election. Doesn't sound like they are too terribly confident that Kerry will win.

JM - have you heard about this:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The Iraqi official heading the investigation into alleged corruption in the United Nations oil-for-food program was killed in a bomb attack earlier this week, officials familiar with the probe said on Saturday.

Ihsan Karim, head of the Board of Supreme Audit, died in hospital after a bomb placed under one of the cars in his convoy exploded on Thursday, the officials said.

Sounds like somebody, somewhere doesn't want the investigation to be completed.
Laura
July 4, 2004   01:08 PM PDT
 
Thank you Jamie. I stand corrected. Also would like to correct my last statement to read' ........ steal the 2000 election by changing the Florida vote.'
gringoman
July 8, 2004   11:30 AM PDT
 
Liked article on "The Moral United Nations." Will link to it at www.gringoman.us Still wondering, though, how far the Oil-For-Fraud investigation will really go, as The Kofi got Volcker to work without subpoena power. The fix is in? Does anyone really think they'll catch Kofi, and the other Big Fish?
Ralph
August 9, 2004   02:37 PM PDT
 
I am for lack of a party in this country that defines me, a Christian Democrat with firm family values. I firmly believe that the best economic engine utilized to date is free market (Capitilism). It maximizes profits to its owners while minimizing the waste of resources. A capitalist strives to maximize revenue and minimize costs (inluding labor) to be able to sell a product to the consumer(aka labor). The only problem I have with Capitalist proponents (not Capitalism itself) is the failure to recognize or admit that temporary crises may arise in pockets of our economy due to free markets imbalances, that cause injury to our labor/consumer pool. Attempts to assist people in need are labeled as leftist or socialist.
The depression on real wages and job related benefits are the effects of global competition from emerging economies is a fact. The question we face is in the equation of our economy - What are we trying to solve for? Maximization of profit at the expense of the middle and lower classes or maximization of benefit to all American citizens (not illegals) from our Capitalist engine at the expense of some economic efficiency? That is the question we must answer. There must be a happy medium. Since the new deal, the US economy has not been a truly free market. Some attempts and programs have been successful (SSA) and others have failings (welfare). But in the name of Capitalism we do not abandon fellow Americans just for the sake of dogma. We try harder to find programs that do work. I am open for suggestions.

Leave a Comment:

Name


Homepage (optional)


Comments