The United Nations: A Legacy of Failure

I've been reading a lot of glowing reports of late about the United Nations. Indeed one can hardly speak about politics or government without someone bringing up the United Nations as a possible solution to nearly every problem imaginable.

"Peace in middle east, well for that to happen we need to get the U. N. involved", one gentleman remarked to me the other day. I simply shook my head and endeavored to give my rather unenlightened colleague a little lesson in Middle East history.

While many would chose to blame the United States for most every problem facing the middle east, the truth is the vast majority of the problems in the Middle East have little to nothing to do with United States foreign policy.

The truth is that almost all of the turmoil in the Middle East today is a result of edicts handed down by the United Nations, and its predecessor the League of Nations. Iraq is a prime example.

The modern country of Iraq was actually part of the Ottoman Empire prior to Word War I. Since the Ottoman's had sided with Germany during the Great War, Britain invaded and captured Baghdad in 1917.

When the armistice was signed in 1918 Iraq stayed under the control of Great Britain, at least until the League of Nations became involved. The League Mandated that Iraq, as well as many other areas of the Middle East that were currently under the control of France and Great Britain eventually be returned to individual sovereignty.

When the League of Nations was disbanded and the United Nations rose to take its place, these territories all became known as "UN Trust Territories" and supposedly they were to remain under British and French rule until a stable government could be formed in each nation.

Sadly however this is not at all what took place. After a failed revolution by the Iraqi people in 1920, the British tried to distance themselves from the situation by appointing a new ruler for Iraq, Faisal bin Hussein. He was made Iraq's first monarch by the British, but lacked popular support for precisely that reason. Anti-British sentiment among the Iraqi's was very high, and Faisal was in an untenable situation. He couldn't keep control of the country without the help of the British, but he also had to deal with his own people who hated the British.

As a result his monarchy was rather short-lived, and in 1958 another revolution in Iraq occurred, ousting Faisal and the royal family, in fact as I recall they were executed. The United Nations would not allow the British to interfere, and they did absolutely nothing about the revolution in Iraq either.

Now certainly the Iraqi's deserved to be free of foreign rule, but sadly such revolutions rarely if ever result in happy endings, and this certainly was the case for this revolution as well. Shortly after the revolution was over the leaders of the revolution took to fighting amongst themselves and the whole country was thrown into chaos. The United Nations again did nothing, allowing the Iraqi's to fend for themselves. Rather than stepping up and instituting some sort of order to allow a stable government to be formed, they just allowed the burgeoning nation to fall into utter madness.

The chaos continued for years, one government after another rose and fell until finally Saddam Hussein managed to "unite" Iraq, mostly by killing anyone that had the temerity to disagree with him.

The Iraqi's never really did get an opportunity for a stable, peaceful government to form because the United Nations would not do it, and wouldn't allow anyone else to do it either. Why? Because the United Nations is comprised of member states who vote on such things, and too a lot of these member states a peaceful, stable Iraq has never been in their best interest.

Foreign nations like France and Russia have made billions from selling arms to various groups and factions not only in Iraq but all throughout the Middle East, and the more chaos and unrest there is there the better business is for these companies, companies with intimate ties to these foreign governments. So the United Nations sat back and watched as Iraq plunged into turmoil, was taken over by a murderous dictator and all the while they did nothing.

Look back through the history of most of the Middle East and even Africa and you'll find much the same story, from Palestine to the Congo. Nation after nation torn apart and left to its own devices after the Second World War, after Britain and France were forced to leave these countries without first establishing a stable, peaceful government.

And worse yet, every little faction in these nations were being armed to the teeth by foreign powers that are member states of the United Nations. These foreign powers that continued to obstruct any effort to form stable, peaceful governments in these nations meanwhile raked in huge profits from the carnage, and continue to do so even today.

But sadly the legacy of failure doesn't end there; that's only the beginning. The United Nations of today has done far worse things in just the last few years. In many of these same war torn nations that U.N. helped create their "peacekeepers" have engaged in human rights abuses of the most heinous variety.

Reports are flooding in from virtual everywhere peacekeepers are stationed, from Bosnia, Haiti, Sierra Leone, Cambodia, East Timor and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Reports of U.N. Peacekeepers having sexual relations with girls as young as 12 on a regular basis, and in return giving them as little as two eggs.

Reports of desperate refuges being forced into prostitution at the behest of these so called "peacekeepers". Reports of rape, abuse, and pedophilia are rampant everywhere U.N. peacekeepers are stationed. A 2001 report released by the U.N High Commissioner for Refuges describes sexual violence against refugees in West Africa to be "endemic".

So how has the U.N. chosen to respond to this epidemic of sub-human behavior by its "peacekeepers"? Well first they have done their utmost to whitewash or bury every report they could on the subject. Since they were not entirely successful in this regard, they took the bold step of issuing a "Code of Conduct" for their peacekeepers, letting them know that having sex with underage refugees in return for the food they were supposed to be providing for them free of charge is wrong. My, talk about a bold moral stance.

However it should be noted that this "Code of Conduct" while attractive on paper is just that, only on paper. It is not being enforced in the slightest as far as anyone can tell. Just ask some of the people in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and they'll tell you stories about U.N. Peacekeepers who were sent there to disarm some of the various militia groups and sold them guns instead. Groups that would then turn around and slaughter innocent women and children enmass with the weapons provided to them by the "peacekeepers" in the region.

The U.N. investigated, found that the allegations were one hundred percent true, and then tried to bury the report. It was only brought to light when an independent investigation by journalists discovered the activities of these peacekeepers and reported it to the rest of the world. Even when the United Nations started its own investigation the peacekeepers who were involved did everything they could to disrupt and obstruct the investigation, including threatening the investigators should the reveal the truth in their report. I have to give the investigators credit, the ignored the threats and reported it to the United Nations. Sadly however the same bureaucrats who called for the investigation then tried to kill it and bury the results, fearing the political fall out that would come from such an investigation being reported to the world.

And so the reprehensible behavior of these corrupt United Nations officials and peacekeepers continues. There is no independent oversight of the United Nations in any of these refugee camps. Worse yet, no international organization can protect the rights of any of these refugees in any country where the United Nations has been given authority.

So while the United Nations top bureaucrats line their pockets and those of close friends and associates with programs like the now infamous "Oil for Food", their peacekeepers are running roughshod over refugees and exploiting the most downtrodden people in the world for their own sick pleasure and financial gain.

This is why whenever anyone suggests to me that the involving the United Nations in anything as a solution I have to roll my eyes, take a deep breath and start educating them as to the history of this corrupt and out of control organization. The United Nations track record is one of failure, corruption, greed and exploitation. It saddens me greatly that my tax dollars are being spent in wholesale fashion to continue to support this morally bankrupt organization, who's only legacy is one of utter failure.