Comments on: A failure to lead at the U.N. Fri, 31 Jul 2015 03:37:49 +0000 hourly 1 By: Andrew767 Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:56:17 +0000 No, those with resources will be exploited.

West New Guinea (West Papua) had gold that Americans wanted, so they tricked Kennedy into blackmailing the Dutch into signing a United Nations trusteeship agreement for the colony. But the word trusteeship was kept out of the agreement and out of the UN resolution 1752 (XVII), so that made it easy for corrupt UN officials to omit the colony from the agenda of the Trusteeship Council.

Something like a half million people have been killed in the colony to keep the US gold mine open, it a slow motion genocide for benefit of US shareholders. And its an example of corruption at the United Nations.

By: D1D1D1 Sat, 13 Apr 2013 16:06:55 +0000 Your article raised many important issues but failed to understand the fundamental distinction between the role of diplomats and UN staff. As a veteran staff member, I would like to offer the following observations:
You recognized that the UN’s greatest strength and weakness it is represented by its 193 governing nations but overlooked the fact that they intentionally elected a “secretary” rather than a “general” at the helm of the organization.
It appears that you subscribed to the idea – like the current secretary-general – that the UN staff is or should be considered diplomats, and be subject to rotation in order to be efficient and effective in discharging their duties. This is a fundamental misunderstanding and contradiction that many – with the secretary-general in primis – tend to make. The large part of UN employees are not diplomats but professionals in specific disciplines (logistics, procurement, child protection, etc.) that are, in the majority of the cases, specific to the type of duty station where they operate (peacekeeping missions vs. headquarters/regional offices).
As a former diplomat, the current secretary-general approached the UN like an embassy or consulate rather than an organization supporting military operations, running humanitarian programmes, and many other activities with significant operational responsibilities. Simply rotating staff between “hardship/warzone” and “posh” locations is counterproductive, immensely expensive, and would prevent the organization from achieving the intended goals of the management reform.
History has proved that the current secretary-general, a former diplomat, led the UN to a failure, while Kofi Annan, a former UN staff a previous secretary-general, was awarded a Nobel Prize and upheld the ideal of the rule of law against “weapons of mass delusion”.

By: Lemming Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:27:23 +0000 In my dream… Americans demand to no longer be a part of the United Nations. Rwanda taught me the final lesson necessary to form my opinion. Those with resources that are necessary to the power-elite receive assistance etc. those who don’t end up like Rwanda.