• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

UN forces scandals


UN forces – just a bunch of thugs?
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 15/02/2005)

It's a good basic axiom that if you take a quart of ice-cream and a quart of dog faeces and mix 'em together the result will taste more like the latter than the former. That's the problem with the UN. If you make the free nations and the thug states members of the same club, the danger isn't that they'll meet each other half-way but that the free world winds up going three-quarters, seven-eighths of the way. Thus the Oil-for-Fraud scandal: in the end, Saddam Hussein had a much shrewder understanding of the way the UN works than Bush and Blair did.

And, of course, corrupt organisations rarely stop at just one kind. If you don't want to bulk up your pension by skimming the Oil-for-Food programme, don't worry, whatever your bag, the UN can find somewhere that suits - in West Africa, it's Sex-for-Food, with aid workers demanding sexual services from locals as young as four; in Cambodia, it's drug dealing; in Kenya, it's the refugee extortion racket; in the Balkans, sex slaves.

But you get the general picture: on a UN peace mission, everyone gets his piece. Didier Bourguet, a UN staffer in Congo and the Central African Republic, enjoyed the pleasures of 12-year-old girls, and as a result is now on trial in France. His lawyer has said he was part of a UN paedophile network that transcends national boundaries.

Now how about this? The Third Infantry Division are raping nine-year olds in Ramadi. Ready, set, go! That thundering sound outside your window isn't the new IKEA sale, but the great herd of BBC/CNN/Independent/Guardian/New York Times/Le Monde/Sydney Morning Herald/Irish Times/Cork Examiner reporters stampeding to the Sunni Triangle. Whoa, hold up, lads, it's only hypothetical.

But think about it: the merest glimpse of a freaky West Virginia tramp leading an Abu Ghraib inmate around with girlie knickers on his head was enough to prompt calls for Rumsfeld's resignation, and for Ted Kennedy to charge that Saddam's torture chambers were now open "under new management", and for Robert Fisk to be driven into the kind of orgasmic frenzy unseen since his column on how much he enjoyed being beaten up by an Afghan mob: "Just look at the way US army reservist Lynndie England holds the leash of the naked, bearded Iraqi," wrote Fisk. "No sadistic movie could outdo the damage of this image. In September 2001, the planes smashed into the buildings; today, Lynndie smashes to pieces our entire morality with just one tug on the leash."

Who's straining at the leash here? Down, boy. But, if Lynndie's smashed to pieces our entire morality with just one tug, Bush's Zionist neocons getting it on with Congolese kindergarteners would have the Independent calling for US expulsion from the UN - no, wait, from Planet Earth: slice it off from Maine to Hawaii and use one of those new Euro-Airbuses to drag it out round the back of Uranus.

But systemic UN child sex in at least 50 per cent of their missions? The transnational morality set can barely stifle their yawns. If you're going to rape prepubescent girls, make sure you're wearing a blue helmet.

And at least the Pentagon put a stop to Abu Ghraib. As a UN official in Congo told the Telegraph yesterday: "The crux of the problem is that if the UN gets bolshie with these governments then they stop providing the UN with troops and staff."

And the problem with that is?

In Congo, the UN has now forbidden all contact between its forces and the natives. The rest of the world should be so lucky.

I take it from his use of "bolshie" that the quoted UN wallah is British. If so, that's the system in a nutshell: when a British bigwig is with British forces, he'll enforce British standards; when a British official is holed up with an impeccably "multilateral" force of Uruguayans, Tunisians, etc, he's more circumspect. When in Rome, do as the Visigoths do.

The child sex racket is only the most extreme example of what's wrong with the UN approach to the world. Developed peoples value resilience: when disaster strikes, you bounce back. A hurricane flattens Florida, you patch things up and reopen. As the New Colonial Class, the UN doesn't look at it like that: when disaster strikes, it just proves you and your countrymen are children who need to be taken under the transnational wing.

The folks that have been under the UN wing the longest - indeed, the only ones with their own permanent UN agency and semi-centenarian "refugee camps" - are the most comprehensively wrecked people on the face of the earth: the Palestinians. UN territories like Kosovo are the global equivalent of inner-city council estates with the blue helmets as local enforcers for the absentee slum landlord. By contrast, a couple of years after imperialist warmonger Bush showed up, Afghanistan and Iraq have elections, presidents and prime ministers.

When the tsunami hit, hundreds of thousands of people died within minutes. The Australians and Americans arrived within hours. The UN was unable to get to Banda Aceh within weeks.

Instead, the humanitarian fat cats were back in New York and Geneva holding press conferences warning about post-tsunami health consequences - dysentery, cholera, BSE from water-logged cattle, etc - that, they assured us, would kill as many people as the original disaster. But it never happened, any more than did their predictions of disaster for Iraq ("The head of the World Food Programme has warned that Iraq could spiral into a massive humanitarian disaster") or Afghanistan ("The UN Children's Fund has estimated that as many as 100,000 Afghan children could die of cold, disease and hunger").

It's one thing to invent humanitarian disasters to disparage Bush's unilateralist warmongering, but a month ago the UN was reduced to inventing a humanitarian disaster in order to distract attention from the existing humanitarian disaster it wasn't doing anything about.

All this derives from a UN culture in which the free nations have met the thug states so much more than half way that they now largely share the dictators' view of their peoples - as either helpless children who need every decision made for them, or a bunch of dupes whose national wealth you can reroute to your Swiss bank account, or a never-ending source of fresh meat. Those British officials trying to rationalise Oil-for-Fraud or child sex rings give the game away: it's not just the underage Congolese girls who get corrupted by contact with the UN.
This sort of conduct seems almost inevitable when officials who may have modest backgrounds come into contact and control of vast amount of money and authority. Just like the chav who wins big on the lottery knows not how to handle his money or a suburban housewife feels lost when suddenly required to employ domestic staff. Very very unfashionable to say it but breeding tells.
Brilliant find stoatman

Thats one i shall be storing for future use in any debates with rabid anti-bush/pro-UN pinkos.

Years ago, when I was a lazy student, the right-on, tree-hugging, moralistic, PC brigade were enough to get on my t1ts and make a nuisance of themselves. Suffice to say, I usually told them to fcuk off and didn't bother with them (my right to do so inasmuch as it was their right to annoy me). The point in now, whilst I go where Queen and Country tells me, the very same do-gooders are in positions of great influence in places such as the UN, civil service (make that MOD), the government, NGOs, etc, making up policies, blathering on about how we are used (or should not be used, as the case may be) and generally affecting everything from our deployments to morale and a lot more in between. I'll defend their right to do so until the very end but I can't help reflecting on the irony. ARRSE.


War Hero
From today's BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4262743.stm

UN soldiers arrested in DR Congo

The allegations have been deeply damaging for the UN
Six Moroccan soldiers serving as UN peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of Congo have been arrested over sex abuse claims, Moroccan officials say.
The head of the Moroccan contingent of UN peacekeepers and his deputy have also been relieved of their duties.

The move follows an inquiry by the UN into repeated allegations that its peacekeepers in DR Congo have sexually exploited and abused women and girls.

The six were sent as part of a UN force meant to protect civilians.

Instead it is alleged that the peacekeepers sexually abused Congolese children.

The Moroccan government's announcement of their arrest was immediately welcomed by the UN mission in Congo.

The spokesman, Mamadou Bah, said the organisation hoped the action taken by Morocco would serve as an example to all nations contributing troops in DR Congo.

Sex ban

The allegations over the past year that peacekeepers have sexually exploited women and girls, including bribing children with food in return for sex, have been highly damaging for the UN.

Last month a team investigated 72 allegations of abuse by UN peacekeepers and civilian staff. Twenty-six of these, involving soldiers from Pakistan, Nepal, Tunisia, South Africa and Uruguay, were substantiated.

In response, the UN introduced a non-fraternisation policy, banning its peacekeepers from having sex with local people.

But UN officials stressed they have no power to discipline peacekeepers.

They can only send them home and request that the country of origin takes action.

And it is only when countries like Morocco prosecute offenders, they say, that sexual abuse by peacekeepers can be stamped out.
Okay they are trying to do 'something' about it but, as in bold above, their hands are somewhat tied.

The first step is to admit that there is a problem, which they seem to be doing rather than sweep it under the carpet; then they need to do something about it, including educating UN troops of their responsibilities. This latter point is very hard, I know, especially as most UN troops are only their for financial and not moral reasons.

Similar threads

Latest Threads