UN no longer seen as neutral, says former chief

Up2Late

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-25-07 04:02 AM
Original message

UN no longer seen as neutral, says former chief

Source: The Independent

UN no longer seen as neutral, says former chief

By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor
Published: 25 June 2007

The Iraq war has shattered the cause of humanitarian intervention endorsed by Tony Blair and directly led to the targeting of relief workers in conflict zones where they are no longer considered to be neutral, according to a former senior UN official.

In a speech in London tonight, Sir Mark Malloch-Brown will say: "The brutal truth is politics is making it harder and harder to serve victims' needs by reaching them with assistance or bearing witness to their suffering and thereby staying the hand of those who would harm them...."

(edit)

...Sir Mark, the former UN deputy secretary-general under Kofi Annan, however, points out that the Sudanese President, General Omar al-Bashir, has been able to use the Iraq invasion as the prime reason to delay acceptance of a UN force in Darfur. "Tony Blair and George Bush have repeatedly called for the right kind of action in Darfur only to be rebuffed as the architects of Iraq. Bashir has tried to make them his best weapon.

"It is not their loss of credibility that concerns me today, but rather that of humanitarian workers. The trouble is the two are linked," he goes on. "I have watched the work I used to do get steadily more dangerous as it is seen as serving Western interests rather than universal values."

Read more: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article2705369.ece

This is very sad news.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Maeve

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-25-07 07:15 AM
Response to Original message

1. Destroying the UN has long been a RW objective

Mission accomplished

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MrPrax

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-25-07 08:43 AM
Response to Original message

2. What a crap load...

I think Sir Mark really means that its difficult to SELL the UN as neutral and so that's why Sir Mark and his friends are finding it difficult to use it as war vehicle to justify invading Sudan like the Security Council tried to do when it considered the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Hypocrisy of international law, scandals which include the UN collusion in the deaths of a millions in Iraq due to the sanctions it profited from, it's general uselessness and lack of success in basic conflicts, charges of rank western dominated imperialism as practiced through the Security Council or the long list of weak and ineffectual puppets, like former Nazis and grifters, that ran it as it's Secretary-General.

But let's not worry about all of those criticisms as Sir Mark has found another Muslim nation that he doesn't like and thinks SHOULD be murdered in the tens of thousands...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Solo_in_MD

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-25-07 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #2

6. Whatever Malloch-Brown has has to say, its really doesn't matter much....

Malloch-Brown has his own issues...

His defense of the Oil for Food program as sound when audits had shown it losing track of $300+ million.

His fervent defense of Kofi Anann with clear corruption issues.

His biggest PR blunder was on June 6, 2006, when he criticized the United States government for allowing "too much unchecked UN-bashing and stereotyping". Like many bureaucrats, he seems to not understand the concept of a free press.

He is not missed...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

blondeatlast

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-25-07 08:45 AM
Response to Original message

3. "Bashir has tried to make them (Bush and Blair) his best weapon."

He had a lot of help from both of them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

pampango

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-25-07 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #3

7. And the Chinese, too, although they probably don't want to point that out. n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

lovuian

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-25-07 08:46 AM
Response to Original message

4. The UN is ineffective we are back in the days of the

League of Nations

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

fazoolius_2006

(137 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-25-07 09:51 AM
Response to Original message

5. The UN has been ineffective for decades

I can't think of the last thing the the UN was involved in that went right.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Up2Late

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-25-07 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #5

8. It sound to me like you have a very poor understanding of what the UN actually is and does.

The UN is not just the Security Council or the General Assembly, and it is not now and never was meant to be a "World Government" as some anti-UN people like to accuse it of, that was never it's purpose. And when some people try to downplay the importance of the UN as "nothing more than a Debating Society," well that's wrong too.

Here's a very simplified list of the parts that make up the UN and links to more info: <http://www.un.org/geninfo/ir/index.asp?id=110#q7>

The United Nations System at a Glance

The UN System Chief Executives Board for Coordination (CEB) is chaired by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Its members include the heads of the following organizations:

* Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
* International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
* International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
* International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)
* International Labour Organization (ILO)
* International Maritime Organization (IMO)
* International Monetary Fund (IMF)
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
* United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)
* United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
* United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
* United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
* United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
* United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
* United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat)
* United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)
* United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)
* United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
* United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)
* Universal Postal Union (UPU)
* The World Bank Group
* World Food Programme (WFP)
* World Health Organization (WHO)
* World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
* World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
* World Tourism Organization (WTO)
* World Trade Organization (WTO)

<http://www.un.org/geninfo/ir/index.asp?id=110#q7>

Yes, one part of the UN is a "Debating Society," so what? Is that a bad thing? Before you answer you should consider that, the UN was formed after WW2, which ended over 60 years ago and, so far, is the last European War and last major World War. Now Sixty years might not sound like much time, until you compare it to the rest of the History of Warfare in Europe. Think about it, the time between WW1 and WW2 was less than 20 years and before that, you won't find many periods of more that 20 years between European wars.

And think about this, The UN was formed almost 10 years before the first Trans-Atlantic Telephone Cable! <http://www.answers.com/topic/transatlantic-telephone-cable>
And I doubt it's been more than 25 years since you could make a Telephone call any person in any town in the world, so having a central neutral location where all the world's governments can meet and debate problems, I think, is a good thing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Lex1775

(314 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-25-07 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #8

9. For an organization...

that doesn't want to be a "world government" they have an awful lot of internal organizations that seem more apt for the governments of sovereign nations (Universal Postal Union, World Tourism Organization, International Civil Aviation Organization, etc). The UN should concentrate it's efforts on being a place where conflicts of interest between governments can be debated and armed confrontation possibly averted.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Mon Apr 29th 2024, 11:28 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.