Day 16 since the Tsunami and the UN has distributed ZERO on the ground

Micheal,
If the UN said my cock was a kipper would you believe it?

 

I think the thread starter should offer proof of what he has insinuated, why does everyone else have to disprove him?

He has put the theory forward so Steve offer up evidence.

BTW A blog does not suffice.

 

Yes

 

But that quote is basically the UNHCR saying that they are doing what they had planned to do regardless of the emergency, but perhaps a bit more urgently than before. It isn't any sort of testimony to the UN response. It's got a bit of back spin to it, IOW.

Paul

 

I would very much like to go out to the affected regions, help out as much as I can for a few weeks and determine for myself what the real position is. Unfortunately, this isn't a practical possibility at this time and, in any case, my main skills - speaker design, aikido and The Feldenkrais Method may not be very high on their list of immediate needs.

I will post any relevant information, either pro or anti the UN effort, as I come across it. However, I see no reason to rule out blogs. Many highly respected journalists, analysts and commentators (probably a majority of them) run their own blogs these days.

Incidentally, carefully reading the UN quote given - In Sri Lanka which is one of the worst hit countries UNHCR is already providing ... (etc.) - persuades me that it's very well spun indeed and I tend to agree with Paul's analysis. The fact that that's the best that the UN has managed to come up with may well support the position taken by the 'Diplomad' boys.

PS: Chris, I'm really sorry to hear about your kipper. You know there are drugs for that nowadays (if the several spam emails I receive each day are any guide).

 

Steve,
I'm Andy
I'm afraid it is beyonf help

 

Right-o. First up, let me state that due to lack of sleep last night (hot weather and spider incidents) my brain is rooted so appologies for scattered/incomplete thoughts.

Paul & Steve - yes, the UN para I posted was well spun. Clearly stated that they re-directed aid intended for situation 'a' in Sri Lanka to higher priority situation 'b'. None the less, it does tend to suggest the blogger's claims re: UN action or lack thereof to be wide of the mark.

Haven't read the blog Steve linked to yet, may have a crack tomorrow arvo. as I'd like to better understand the context of these allegations.

Haven't bothered to check before posting (see above) but IIRC there was a inter-governmental meeting last week where both Aus and US agreed to work with the UN to co-ordinate aid efforts rather than continuing their seperate program. IF I've got this right (which I may not have) this would IMHO tend to indicate that the UN is doing something right (fingers crossed and trying not to think cynical thoughts).

Concerned about the impact of Aceh seperatists/Indon. milliatary ceasefire breaking down. Specifically: "General Sutarto...confirmed no foreigners could travel outside Banda Aceh and Meulaboh without the permission of the military because of security risks."

This situation could really fcuk up ALL aid efforts in this region, regardless of UN involvement or otherwise. Also see here and here.

Will get back to this tomorrow when mentally functional again.

Stuart.

 

Sorry Andy. I knew that.

 

Here's an article about 'the situation on the ground' from Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, a respected German publication - not a blog.

The article hardly mentions the UN but compares US and Australian aid efforts with European (particularly German) efforts. Whether this strengthens or weakens the case made by The Diplomad I'll leave for you to decide.

 

I posted this earlier but no one saw it

When Does $350 Million Equal 42 Hours?

According to this story in the Chicago Sun-Times, the war in Iraq has cost $130 billion to date (per the Office of Management and Budget). Given that the US invaded Iraq 20 March 2003, that comes to 656 days since the invasion, which in turn equals $198,730,732 per day.

In other words, the total amount committed by the US government to date for tsunami relief -- $350,000,000 -- equals 42.27 hours of the cost of the war in Iraq. Just to put things in perspective.

 

saw a programme on c4 a few days ago called what would jesus drive about the americans obsession with suv's.
on particular tw@ at the new hummer launch party said - 'come on george now we own iraq get the price of gas down to a dollar instead of 3' no wonder a bunch of people think amerikkka sucks.
cheers


julian

 

I did see the original post. Are you saying that the budget for overseas aid should be related to the defence budget? Is that the way we do things in Europe?

I do clearly understand that many people, yourself included, consider that the current military involvement in Iraq by US (and other troops, incl. UK) is illegal, morally wrong, destructive, non-productive, fueling Islamic terrorism, etc., etc. and that we should have left Saddam Hussein in power and kept out.

Nevertheless, US (and UK) involvement in Iraq is a separate issue to the Tsunami aid programme and the fact that many people disagree with that involvement doesn't link it, any more than our road, rail or school building programmes are linked to overseas aid.

As individuals, are our hi-fi upgrading budgets linked to our own donations?

 

Steve,

I'm trying to figure out what you are getting at. Are you suggesting that UN are a waste of resources and should be disbanded?, replaced perhaps by US as the "Global Police". Or are you suggesting that UN should be restructured? or is it something else altogether.

As I've said before, AFAICT, US constantly blames UN for everything that's wrong with the world but does nothing positive to change this. I've never liked the idea of a single nation having the power to veto what the rest of the world decides, this is one of the things I'd like to change.

 

As I've said previously, my purpose in starting this thread was to encourage people to look more critically at the UN, in the light of what I consider to be 'rose-coloured' and inaccurate media coverage. Such coverage colours our perception of the various situations where the UN is involved, such as in Bosnia, Rwanda, Dafur, Iraq, etc. and makes it difficult for us to see clearly.

I haven't made any suggestions for what I think should be done with the UN itself but, since you ask, I'm in favour of radical reform.

However, if the UN were to be replaced, I'd rather see it replaced by some sort of body of democratic nations. To have it replaced by the US would be a waste of time - we already have the US.

 

I guess I was just pointing out that for all the trumpeting about how great the US is at giving aid, it's a pittance against the amount they are spending on waging an illegal invasion of another country.

 

Steve,

IMO, there are too many selfish devil's advocates (or moaning minnies if you like) and not enough people who actually want to make a difference. Take any major project we undertake in this country from The Dome to the Education system to the Olympics bid. Every single time we waste valuable time in pointless arguments when other countries (remember that famous Football Stadium in Japan?) just get on with building something. I know people at work who constantly argue why they should pay for someone else's education or health, even though they are reaped the benefits when they were students or ill . No one seems to want to help anyone any more.

Rant over.

 

IMO, many of the "failings" of the UN have nothing to do with the UN per se but everything to do with the selfish agendas of member states, particularly the permanent security council members. In the currently situation in Darfur which could well be Rwanda all over again China and Russia (both SC veto holders) are blocking tougher action because of their own interests. China owns 40% of Sudan's main oilfield and Russia is the main arms supplier for the Sudan government. Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4173829.stm

As to the cases of rape by peacekeeping forces alleged by Steve earlier, you can hardly blame the UN as a body on the basis of a few f*cked up soldiers. The UN can only be as effective as its member states want it to be and peacekeeping missions are staffed by soldiers from member states. What went wrong in Rwanda was not the fault of the UN as an organization or its staff, it was the fault of member states not giving a shit.

Since we're in the unfortunate situation where the US is the only superpower the UN can't do anything large scale that the US doesn't want to do. Israel has for many years been in flagrant breach of UN resolutions against it for occupying Gaza and the West Bank but since the US supports Israel those resolutions aren't worth the paper they're written on (not to mention the countless other resolutions against Israel which the US systematically vetoed over the years). Conversely, if the US wants to do something it will do it, even if the rest of the world and the UN are against (invading Iraq) as there's absolutely nothing anyone can do about it.

Certainly the UN requires reform. The first step should be to scrap the permanent security council members and the power of veto they have. Since none of the current SC members are ever likely to agree to that I haven't wasted any time thinking about what should happen beyond that.

Michael.

 

Saw that too. Depressing

Michael.

 

I know Tom.

My attitude is that we're there and that the Iraqis deserve better than for us to withdraw our troops now and leave them to God knows what.

There are strong indications from opinion polls that over 80% of Iraqis want democracy. I'm NOT saying that 80% of Iraqis support a Western presence in their country but I believe that most of them feel it's a necessary evil at this point in time.

They'll have an election and perhaps after that everything will descend into chaos and civil war but perhaps not. It may not be as easy for the insurgents to rally their forces to fight against Iraq's democratically elected government than to fight against the USA (no matter how imperfect that democracy may be to start).

So there you are. Call me Polyanna if you like but my view is we're there and we have to make the best of it. If that costs the US billions of dollars then so be it (tee hee).

And, to get back to my original criticism of your post and the subject of this thread, if the USA had followed Claire Short's suggestions and held back its aid effort (alongside Australia, India, Singapore, etc.) and waited for UN coordination, hundreds of thousands of people would have perished needlessly.

Believe me, if that had happened you would have heard me really rant against the UN.

 

Dev,

I couldn't agree more.

There was a time, in the fifties and sixties, that I honestly believe the UK was the finest place on the planet. Sadly, no longer.

In virtually every area - from binge drinking to single parents, from health to welfare, from education to housing - this country has been in serious decline.

At the same time, we've become a 'me' society and screw everyone else. At heart I believe that we're kind-hearted but it seems to take a massive disaster to mobilize the nation to show that side of itself.

I'm not sure what the answers are but I'm starting to believe that the very mechanisms that were designed to form the solution have in fact become part of the problem.

_________________________________________________________

BTW Michael,

I agree with much of what you say in the post above - not everything of course but we wouldn't want that, would we?

Criticizing Russia and China now, eh? I'll have you neo-conning with the best of them yet. (just kidding, just kidding)