The United Nations & Haiti: More skulduggery
If an international corporation treated Haiti as the United Nations did after all fingers pointed to Nepalese peacekeepers as the source of a devastating cholera outbreak in 2010, the lawsuit filed against the company would be “stratospheric.”
So begins an extensive examination of the United Nations' “mission” by Armin Rosen for The Atlantic — not only of the Haiti cholera outbreak that killed 8,000 people but of the philosophy of lawlessness that permeates today's Turtle Bay.
This, after U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon rejected direct compensation to Haiti's victims, citing diplomatic immunity.
Despite the preponderance of scientific evidence that leaves little doubt, Mr. Ban won't even acknowledge the cholera outbreak's link to U.N. peacekeepers, whose failure to abide by even the most basic sanitation precautions reportedly infected a tributary of Haiti's largest river.
And never mind the United Nations' efforts to sanitize this scandal.
Almost three years after the outbreak, cholera is projected to kill up to 1,000 people annually in a country that didn't have any reported cases for a century, Mr. Rosen says.
“The U.N. has few legal obligations to anyone or anything other than itself, and it's not fighting the cholera allegations because it simply doesn't have to,” Rosen writes.
So once again, the United Nations places itself above any law except that which it decrees. Its response to Haiti deserves an equal if not overdue response from the United States to the U.N.:
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- Expanding Medicaid: Gov.-elect Wolf embraces a false premise
- Saturday essay: A manger’s light
- The regulatory state: EPA picks a fight
- Picking winners & losers: Stop the idiocy
- Ford City’s solution: Good side to cop cuts