Quote:
Originally Posted by MattLarson
Yes, the consortium excluded the UN - apparently, they wanted to actually accomplish something. That's not the UN's forte....
|
The UN has had great success on many humanitarian fronts when its member states cooperate. But the UN is only as strong as its member states, and when its strongest member states seek to marginalize and exclude it, their is no doubt that it will have trouble.
On what basis do you believe that the UN, had it not been excluded, would have still been unable to accomplish its humanitarian goals?
Quote:
When it finally got delivered, you mean? The UN lagged quite a bit behind the US in actually putting aid on the ground, IIRC.
Should we have waited for the UN to get their crap together, and screw the folks who needed immediate assistance? Or is the real issue here that the UN can't claim credit for what the US did?
Matt
|
The problem, and the point im trying to make, is that the UN and the consortium should not be working separately towards the same humanitarian goal. They should be working together. I see no reason for not coordinating these relief efforts.
What im against is this consortium using these situations as an opportunity to pursue economic and political polices out of their own self interest (especially since these policies have failed wherever they have been tried).
IMO, Its important that the UN be the ultimate coordinator of aid so as to separate the two issues, those being people who need aid and support immediately and post disaster, and the mostly unrelated issue of the economic and political reform of some of the countries involved.
Im against those issues being tied together as has been the case for the last decade and a half... it has failed.
Andrew