Posted on 02/21/2005 9:23:05 AM PST by joan
It is time to evaluate the purpose and the worth of the United Nations.
It is obvious that political agendas and corruption outweigh the organization's good intentions and even its good deeds. The oil-for-food scandal is just the tip of this crooked, international iceberg.
The U.N. levies sanctions against rabid countries but does not have the backbone to fully enforce those sanctions. It issues resolutions against evil dictators, but fails to act decisively and appropriately when the resolutions are ignored or violated. (Case in point, 12 years in Iraq.) Then, when someone has the courage to step up and do what needs to be done, the secretary general himself accuses them of violating international law.
You could write a book about what the U.N. has not done to help the people of Iraq. The U.N. may not have agreed with the decision of the United States and its coalition partners to enforce the U.N. resolutions, but what is done is done. The U.N. had almost two years to step in and do the right thing for the sake of the Iraqi people. These so-called "world leaders" would rather hope for us to fail than help the struggling citizens of Iraq reclaim and rebuild their country.
It is clear that the situation in Iraq, although somewhat volatile, is heading in a good direction.There is a new sense of freedom and liberty growing in the hearts of the Iraqi people. The U.N. has an incredible opportunity to be part of the rebirth of a region, but instead, it is sitting on the sidelines and allowing the insurgency to prolong the anguish. All it has to do is swallow a little of its political pride and be willing to help where needed.
Just when the Iraqi people could use them most, they are keeping their distance. Where is the financial aid? Where is the humanitarian relief? Where are the U.N. diplomats? Where are the U.N. protective forces? How is it that the U.N. was so quick to cooperate with the United States regarding the tsunami victims, yet still unwilling to help the Iraqi people?
There are a number of other fronts affording the U.N. opportunities to prove its worth. What is it doing to terminate Iran's nuclear program? What is the U.N. going to do about the growing threat in North Korea? If history is to repeat itself, it will levy sanctions and issue resolutions, without adequately enforcing either. One would think that by now, the U.N. would have learned when and how to achieve success when dealing with rogue nations.
Who am I to judge? I served in the former Republic of Yugoslavia during the early 1990s. I worked under the authority of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' Belgrade office. Among other things, I was directly involved in the evacuations of Muslim refugees from Srebrenica to Tuzla in April 1993.
One night, Bosnian Serbs had shelled the Muslim enclave, injuring a number of women and children, who were subsequently airlifted and trucked to hospitals. You may recall the scene on CNN, where a young boy was lying in the back of a truck, covered in blood and screaming for his mama. The CNN reporter claimed that these people were victims of an unprovoked attack launched by the Serbs.
The truth of the matter is that the shelling was a counterattack against the Muslim forces in Srebrenica, who had just finished shelling nearby Serb positions. The Muslim assault had lasted for approximately three hours and ended moments before the counterattack began. How do I know this? I read the message from the U.N. Communications Team in Srebrenica to the U.N. Mission in Belgrade.The U.N. however, saw to it that the correct information was never released to the media. Why? Because the truth did not suit its political agenda. There is no denying that the U.N. has done a lot of good in the humanitarian arena. During my tour in Yugoslavia, we provided humanitarian aid to more than 2 million refugees. However, those efforts and today's relief missions are overshadowed by the political agendas and corruption which are infesting the entire organization.
The U.N. either needs to get their act together and be an effective global leadership body or it needs to reduce itself to some form of international aid alliance. It doesn't matter which way they go, so long as the world can rely on it to accomplish its new purpose.
Alan Helvig is a local Realtor. He can be contacted at Alan@BigAlproperties.com.
The U.N. levies sanctions against rabid countries but does not have the backbone to fully enforce those sanctions.
Don't these 2 sentences pretty much say it all. The UN should be reduced to nothing more than a Humanitarian Organization.
They constantly left out reports of these provocative attacks initiated by the Muslims, and only reported Serbs actions making genuine counterattacks look like initiating assaults.
And, it should be moved to where there is humanitarian need. Khartoum in the Sudan comes to mind.
bttp
It just seems to me that if your chief nuclear watchdog has the name Mohammed ... well, there's just something wrong there and nothing he says should be taken seriously, particularly when dealing with Islamic states.
I think Rwanda is probably nice this time of year.
"It doesn't matter which way they go..."
as long as it is OUT OF THE U.S.
It is time - GET THE U.S. OUT OF THE UN and THE UN OUT OF THE U.S.
I love the net.
...at the very least it should be kicked out of the USA!
bump
This is noteworthy exactly how?
"The truth of the matter is that the shelling was a counterattack against the Muslim forces in Srebrenica, who had just finished shelling nearby Serb positions. The Muslim assault had lasted for approximately three hours and ended moments before the counterattack began. How do I know this? I read the message from the U.N. Communications Team in Srebrenica to the U.N. Mission in Belgrade.The U.N. however, saw to it that the correct information was never released to the media. Why? Because the truth did not suit its political agenda."
Further, the Muslims used civilians as their shields. Then you have the Muslim doctor's testimony at the Hague recently where he says it was the civilians who came with the Muslim army to loot and pick clean Serb villagers belongings. Also the Muslim "civilians" where, according to him, responsible for burning Serbs' homes after they looted and killing Serbs' livestock.
Mujkanovic claims that “the soldiers did not burn houses in the villages they attacked.” As he says, they were only interested in weapons and ammunition, while the burning of houses was “some kind of revenge by civilians.” He also confirmed that such conduct could be anticipated during every further offensive launched by the units under Naser Oric’s command.
I see you don't think beheading by Muslims is criminal if the victims are Serbs. No those beheaded Serbs weren't victims they were the recipricants of an honored Muslim tradition.
That's called a strawman argument, Joan.
Can you say that?
S-t-r-a-w-m-a-n a-r-g-u-m-e-n-t.
No? Well no matter - what's done is done, and no amount of disingenuous whining on your part is going to change it.
Translated to plain English, Muslim civilians were used as a shield for Muslim Army in Srebrenica enclave.
It was standard Modus operandi in Bosnia and elsewhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.