Damn the US but forgive the UN
Well, my friends, here we go again.
Day in and day out, we hear about how awful the US is. Torturing prisoners, committing genocide in Iraq (according to a Turkish leader) Bombing children, stealing from poor countries, etc. etc. etc.
And we get to hear about how great the UN is. How it will save the world. How we should go before it every time as supplicants before the King.
Pardon me as I pause to laugh my head off.
As the days go by, we get bits and pieces of further scandal in the UN. But, we rarely hear about it in the mainstream media.
I give you this current list from the Washington Times.
1. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said yesterday he was disappointed in his son for accepting payments from a key contractor in the oil-for-food program for more than four years longer than had been previously acknowledged.
2. The most damning charge so far -- that former Iraq program administrator Benon Sevan accepted bribes from the former regime -- was made in October by former U.N. weapons inspector Charles A. Duelfer, who led a Senate investigation into the scandal.
3. The U.N. peacekeeping department is wracked by accusations of rape, sexual harassment and extortion by blue helmets and civilians in the U.N. mission in Congo. By last summer, 150 separate transgressions had been documented -- sometimes by the soldiers' own cameras.
4. Internally, a group that represents some 5,000 U.N. employees in New York is seeking to reopen an investigation of the U.N. inspector general, Dileep Nair, over charges of sexual harassment and favoritism within the organization's main oversight agency.
5. The secretary-general also threw out an internal report finding merit in a sexual harassment complaint filed last summer against High Commissioner for Refugees Ruud Lubbers.
Where were all the photos of the peacekeepers? Why weren't they plastered all over the news and in the papers?
This post isn't meant to be an exhoneration of actions by Americans. It is to show the obvious bias in reporting.
Take out the name Kofi Annan and insert the name George Bush....can you imagine the reaction then?
So please forgive me if I react with disdain regarding the UN.
20 Comments:
Couldn't agree more Donald. Great post here. Unchecked power and lack of accountability almost necessarily results in some degree of abuse, regardless of the decision-making entity.
I agree that the people who committed these crimes are wrong and should be punished but guess what, the UN doesn't saction torture:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6951969
Forget playing politics. The Bush administration has enough problems but they're widely known. Both the UN and the administration need serious reform.
Clearly the UN not only has some serious problems now, but they have for some time now. But, this post almost sounds like you're excusing the Bush admin. Particularly with the way you started the post.
With the UN we are but one of many participants. It is not "ours". This country and whomever is the elected President IS "ours" 24/7/365.
I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the American media holding our "own" under a stronger microscope than they do the UN.
What I find... um... interesting is how Bush apologists seem to have a huge problem with the media reporting Bush's errors more than they do the UN's errors. Yet, when it was a Dem President getting vastly, vastly more coverage than the UN... not a peep.
"I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the American media holding our 'own' under a stronger microscope than they do the UN."
Yes Kevin but I think Donald rightly points out the American media hold the UN under virtually *no* microscope at all.
I think saying the US media hold the UN under *no* microscope is a little far-fetched. They are reported on somewhat and I will concede that it is probably not enough. But I could easily say the same thing for the US media holding Bush Administraion under a microscope. In my opinion, the media has been extremely easy on this Administration--at least up until the election--but even then I don't think the media held the Bush Administration as accountable as the media should have.
I'd say it is a two-way street with the media. They don't hold the UN or the current Administration accountable enough.
I wrote "virtually no" microscope.
I agree with The Disenfranchized Voter.
But, to address what Scott brought up... I don't disagree. What rubs me the wrong way is that it was no different under Clinton. So why contrast the UN coverage with the Bush coverage? How is it relevant?
As always, context is everything.
I think the comparison apt, Kevin, because since October 2002 bad news for the Bush administration has generally meant good news for the UN, and vice versa.
And hopefully it goes without saying that the media has been "tough" (relatively speaking) on the Bush administration since events have turned very sour in Iraq, therefore any bad news about the UN in a way "strengthens" (perceptionally) the administration case.
Funny, where was the media when we were rushing off to war? But that's a story for another time.
Mostly I think that bad news about the UN strengthens the administration's case with their core supporters who already oppose anything and everything that the UN stands for. But, I suppose much depends on which case you mean.
With respect to the Iraq War I don't see any relevance between the administration's assertions about Iraqi and the UN, except to the extent that Powell was trotted before the UN to put on a dog and pony show.
If you're talking about the administration's case for problems with the UN then I'd agree with you. But only with respect to that one issue.
A few years ago I read about Italian troops in the Congo (Ziare) seeking out 11, 12 & 13 year old prostitutes so that they wouldn't catch AIDS. That was pedophilia regardless of their motives (assuming that they'd have preferred older woman that they could trust weren't HIV+). I think they were there as "Blue Helmets" too. Should that have been reported widely here in America? Maybe. But, they were Italian troops, not American troops. I just don't see any evidence for a massive bias in that. To my way of looking at it, it's perfectly normal for a nation's media to focus on their own people and government first and foremost.
Let me clarify that I am refering to reporting over the world. You can throw in any president and you reach the same conclusion
The fact is, overall, the UN is NOT held to the same scrutiny the US is.
The unilateralism/multilateralism case is what began the Administration-UN friction, and thus every positive or negative piece of news which referred to either side has hurt or improved the other's case. UN peacekeeping vs coalition peacekeeping, food/medical aid and utility provisioning, which is better at smoothing the path to self-governance, etc. etc. Since the world at large (going to Donald's point) is behind the US and not the administration, it is not surprising and yes, very relevant that negative news about the UN is less apt to be reported. So Kevin, I see this as much broader than you do I suppose.
behind the US=behind the UN
"The fact is, overall, the UN is NOT held to the same scrutiny the US is."
Agreed, and that is because the US rules us, not the UN. I feel that our President should be more scruntinized by our media than the UN. That isn't to say that the UN shouldn't be scruntinized by our media, but I am certainly more concerned with the President and the Administration.
Both deserve more scrutiny, however, Donald's point is a good one--the international press generally does not scrutinize the UN hardly at all.
Scott hits the nail on the head. I do agree with Voter that the US Pres should be heavier scrutinized than the UN. I'm not asking for greater....I'm asking for some.
And, while some may dismiss the scandels of the UN, let us not forget that our tax dollars help pay for the UN. And let us not forget that the actions of the UN are also done, "In our name" and in the name of the world.
The UN needs major overhaul and until that happens, I will not support the UN.
"The UN needs major overhaul and until that happens, I will not support the UN."
I find that comment completely absurd and I'll explain why. Do you not support the US, Donald? Afterall I think I could EASILY make the case the current US government needs major overhaul and is more corrupt than the UN.
The reason why you don't think the UN is scruntized nearly enough is because you don't hold them as accountable as your own government. Sure the UN in corrupt and sure it needs overhaul but does that mean you shouldn't support the UN?
You're only way of invalidating my point would be to say that you also don't support the US government.
Typos...
Sure the UN is* corrupt
Your* only way
You are right Voter.
I do not support the current administration of the UN.
There are many ways that the UN can achieve a positive impact on the world. However, with the way things are, I believe it will need major overhaul to see that happen.
Until then, I withold my total support of the UN.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home