UN Internal Security Investigation Report Released
MonsieurEvil
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">None too kind...</div> <a href='http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/10/23/MNGQE2HAVB1.DTL' target='_blank'>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGQE2HAVB1.DTL</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Panel rips U.N.'s Iraq security
Agency faulted for ignoring warnings
Kirk Semple, New York Times Thursday, October 23, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United Nations -- A panel appointed by the United Nations to investigate the bombing of its Baghdad headquarters on Aug. 19 said Wednesday that the organization failed to thoroughly assess the security situation in Iraq and to adequately respond to warnings, including an intelligence report that said the building could be the target of an attack.
"The U.N. security management system failed in its mission to provide adequate security to U.N. staff in Iraq," the seven-member panel, led by Martti Ahtisaari, former president of Finland, said in its scathing report.
The panel also determined that the United Nations' general security management system was "dysfunctional" and "provides little guarantee of security to U.N. staff in Iraq or other high-risk environments and needs to be reformed."
The August bombing, thought to be the work of militants loyal to the regime of Saddam Hussein, killed 22 people at the U.N. headquarters.
The panel did not blame specific people for the errors or directly criticize Annan, but it recommended the formation of an independent body to review the case.
The panel catalogued a series of management failures, analytical shortcomings, disorganization and "ambivalence" toward the security threat that left the headquarters vulnerable to attack.
In the days before the bombing, U.N. security officials received information about "an imminent bomb attack" near the headquarters, the report said. "It was also reported that other information was available around mid- July that the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad was under threat from a group loyal to the former regime," the report said. A security report on Aug. 19 specifically referred to the danger of attacks by vehicles loaded with explosives.
But U.N. management "did not take adequate increased measures to protect its staff and premises," the panel reported.
The authors of the report also pointed to the "ambiguous" day-to-day coordination between the U.N. mission and the alliance authorities, who, as the occupying power, had formal responsibility for the security of U.N. staff.
The report noted that U.N. personnel asked alliance forces "on several occasions" to withdraw their security presence from around the headquarters, but failed to request alternative security arrangements.
Among the defenses set up by the Americans, and removed at the request of the United Nations, was a 5-ton truck blocking access to the service road the bomber used to reach the headquarters. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The recurring motto of the UN over the past 60 years seems to be goodwill foundering in utter incompetence and a complete lack of willingness to learn from their mistakes. This is certainly not the first time (the article references Rwanda and Bosnia, but those are simply the most recent), and probably will not be the last. Over and over and over again this happens - why do they never learn, or really seem to even try? Were those lives worth the UN's absurd gesture of impartiality? Or is this the price you pay?
And this topic is not about 'BUT THE US DOES THE SAME THING' or 'IF IRAQ WAS NOT OCCUPIED THIS WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED', or other such table-turning idiocy in lieu of real debate. Learn to stick to the subject at hand if you want to be considered someone worth discussing things with.
Can the UN save itself from its own ineptitude?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Panel rips U.N.'s Iraq security
Agency faulted for ignoring warnings
Kirk Semple, New York Times Thursday, October 23, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United Nations -- A panel appointed by the United Nations to investigate the bombing of its Baghdad headquarters on Aug. 19 said Wednesday that the organization failed to thoroughly assess the security situation in Iraq and to adequately respond to warnings, including an intelligence report that said the building could be the target of an attack.
"The U.N. security management system failed in its mission to provide adequate security to U.N. staff in Iraq," the seven-member panel, led by Martti Ahtisaari, former president of Finland, said in its scathing report.
The panel also determined that the United Nations' general security management system was "dysfunctional" and "provides little guarantee of security to U.N. staff in Iraq or other high-risk environments and needs to be reformed."
The August bombing, thought to be the work of militants loyal to the regime of Saddam Hussein, killed 22 people at the U.N. headquarters.
The panel did not blame specific people for the errors or directly criticize Annan, but it recommended the formation of an independent body to review the case.
The panel catalogued a series of management failures, analytical shortcomings, disorganization and "ambivalence" toward the security threat that left the headquarters vulnerable to attack.
In the days before the bombing, U.N. security officials received information about "an imminent bomb attack" near the headquarters, the report said. "It was also reported that other information was available around mid- July that the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad was under threat from a group loyal to the former regime," the report said. A security report on Aug. 19 specifically referred to the danger of attacks by vehicles loaded with explosives.
But U.N. management "did not take adequate increased measures to protect its staff and premises," the panel reported.
The authors of the report also pointed to the "ambiguous" day-to-day coordination between the U.N. mission and the alliance authorities, who, as the occupying power, had formal responsibility for the security of U.N. staff.
The report noted that U.N. personnel asked alliance forces "on several occasions" to withdraw their security presence from around the headquarters, but failed to request alternative security arrangements.
Among the defenses set up by the Americans, and removed at the request of the United Nations, was a 5-ton truck blocking access to the service road the bomber used to reach the headquarters. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The recurring motto of the UN over the past 60 years seems to be goodwill foundering in utter incompetence and a complete lack of willingness to learn from their mistakes. This is certainly not the first time (the article references Rwanda and Bosnia, but those are simply the most recent), and probably will not be the last. Over and over and over again this happens - why do they never learn, or really seem to even try? Were those lives worth the UN's absurd gesture of impartiality? Or is this the price you pay?
And this topic is not about 'BUT THE US DOES THE SAME THING' or 'IF IRAQ WAS NOT OCCUPIED THIS WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED', or other such table-turning idiocy in lieu of real debate. Learn to stick to the subject at hand if you want to be considered someone worth discussing things with.
Can the UN save itself from its own ineptitude?
Comments
Personally, I find the question whether the UN can save itself from its own ineptitude wrong. The question is whether the nations that are united in this institution really want it to be capable of self-defense. I'm specifically referring to this paragraph:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The report noted that U.N. personnel asked alliance forces "on several occasions" to withdraw their security presence from around the headquarters, but failed to request alternative security arrangements. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is an obvious example of rejection out of unconcerned quarrels: The sign set was simply that the UN, having been ignored by the US, would now ignore them in return. This kind of petty fighting is of course ridiculous and far from mature, but it's a prime example of how the UN is devoid of practical grounding: It's preferring diplomatic signs to pragmatic action.
The reason for this can be found in the whole of the UNs structure, which is layed out to be abstract - the security council alone keeps it aloft by blocking any kind of fast response due to the possibility of vetoing a resolution into eternity (the preface of the second Gulf War, was, despite the in my opinion wrong intention of the US' resolution, a prime example for this).
To get the UN into a more practical role, a complete restructuring of its decision-making systems would have to be necessary, and I can't see how any mightier nation would allow this, as it'd be paralleled by giving up on power in favor of a potentially uncontrollable entity.
The matter of fact is that an international organization that serves both as platform for diplomatic efforts <i>and</i> as decision-making gremium on cases of global significance (as they become more and more regular) is absolutely necessary, for the alternative is a return to the kind of foreign policy that encited the two World Wars, but as long as there's <i>one</i> nation with veto rights, <i>one</i> nation that can effectively ignore the influence of this institution, it will be powerless.
The EU is a completely different topic, which I'd be happy to discuss at another place.
You are right, a return to the forgin policies of old is not a good idea. But the UN as it is now, is not very good at handleing situations, praticulary ones involveing war. It could be useful, but it needs to be re-worked. If one country wants to go to war theres bound to be 5 others that don't want it to. The result is the ugly diplomatic "brawls", like we saw not so long ago, that end up creating such stupid things as "freedom fries". A sad day in America that was.
What countries use it responsibly? UK? China? Russia? USA? Please, they all care only about themselves and how it affects them. USA isn't blameless either, if you mean that it's somehow better than France or Germany; vetoing countless UN resolutions against Israel.
IMO UN is already dead. It might stay but I doubt it will have any huge impact on anything anymore. Or if you want to save it, drop the veto right completely. Democratic voting from all(though that wouldn't have changed Gulf War II's acceptance from UN, seeing other countries besides France and Germany objected as well.)
And I'm pretty fed up with people blaming France and Germany for everything.
I wonder if anyone would like to propose a workable replacement for the UN?
My idea would be to have a worldwide UN 'tax'. Any country that wanted to be a member of the UN would pay a flat percentage annual fee based off of GDP (so poorer nations can still join if they wish). If you don't pay, you don't get to join or have any bearing on the discussions. Now that you are a member, there could be rotating-seat committees like the the US Congress which can bring proposals to the floor, but have no real decision power. Then you use a simple majority for minor decisions, and a 2/3rds majority for more important things like a resolution to occupy a country with peacekeepers. I also believe that nations which can be classified as terrorist or run by dictators (as classified by vote of the UN) should be excluded from being allowed to join comittees, but can still vote. As for giving the UN some 'bite', which they tend to lack, you could have a pseudo-mercenary army of peacekeepers that are directly paid for out of the UN 'taxed' budget, who answer directly to the UN alone and are not on loan from other countries. It doesn't need to be very big, and could be mainly designed for more low-intensity conflicts and occupation missions, as that's what the UN usually does (when it does anything).
That's my idea, comments, and your own proposals?
Though I'm not sure if we would need a rotating-seat commitee. Current system would work fine if there actually wouldn't be that supid veto system. Russia or China or any country vetoing something only to amuse themselves leads in to "I guess we can't do anything then...who's up for a round of golf?"
<li>Reliable and independent executive organs for the enforcment of its decisons, a competent army being the most important of them. I'd also argue that it'd require some sort of intelligence agency and a small police force, as well.
<li>An administrative structure based on majority decision.
<li>An international court bound to nothing but the Human Rights Charter - to control both the administration and the executive and to try criminals no national trial can reach (high politicans, war criminals, that kind of stuff).
<li>A reliable way of financing all of the above.
<!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hold on, hold on! This can't be right, there must be an explanation...
o_O
O_o
Yeah ok, but I only bow.
Damn king nothing.
<b>France</b>
-Population: 60,180,529
-GDP: $1.54 trillion
-Population below poverty line: 6.4%
-Military expenditures: $46.5 billion
-Environmental agreements: Air Pollution, Air Pollution-Nitrogen Oxides, Air Pollution-Sulphur 85, Air Pollution-Sulphur 94, Air Pollution-Volatile Organic Compounds, Antarctic-Environmental Protocol, Antarctic-Marine Living Resources, Antarctic Seals, Antarctic Treaty, Biodiversity, Climate Change, Desertification, Endangered Species, Hazardous Wastes, Kyoto Protocol, Law of the Sea, Marine Dumping, Marine Life Conservation, Ozone Layer Protection, Ship Pollution, Tropical Timber 83, Tropical Timber 94, Wetlands, Whaling
<b>Italy</b>
-Population: 57,998,353
-GDP: $1.438 trillion
-Population below poverty line: NA%
-Military expenditures: $20.2 billion
-Environmental agreements: Air Pollution, Air Pollution-Nitrogen Oxides, Air Pollution-Sulphur 85, Air Pollution-Sulphur 94, Air Pollution-Volatile Organic Compounds, Antarctic-Environmental Protocol, Antarctic-Marine Living Resources, Antarctic Seals, Antarctic Treaty, Biodiversity, Climate Change, Desertification, Endangered Species, Environmental Modification, Hazardous Wastes, Law of the Sea, Marine Dumping, Nuclear Test Ban, Ozone Layer Protection, Ship Pollution, Tropical Timber 83, Tropical Timber 94, Wetlands, Whaling
<b>Germany</b>
-Population: 82,398,326
-GDP: $2.184 trillion
-Population below poverty line: NA%
-Military expenditures: $38.8 billion
-Environmental agreements: Air Pollution, Air Pollution-Nitrogen Oxides, Air Pollution-Sulphur 85, Air Pollution-Sulphur 94, Air Pollution-Volatile Organic Compounds, Antarctic-Environmental Protocol, Antarctic-Marine Living Resources, Antarctic Seals, Antarctic Treaty, Biodiversity, Climate Change, Desertification, Endangered Species, Environmental Modification, Hazardous Wastes, Law of the Sea, Marine Dumping, Nuclear Test Ban, Ozone Layer Protection, Ship Pollution, Tropical Timber 83, Tropical Timber 94, Wetlands, Whaling
Enviromental agreements is there because I think it's important that countries take care of their flora and fauna. One could profit a lot more and pollute more too.
So basically, Italy could be there otherwise but France and Germany has two times bigger military expenditures. That's pretty major factor there.
France has, practically, a mercenary army. Germany doesn't want to be presented as a threa to anyone. And no, those money don't go to EUF(EU force), but on those countries national defence. Not yet at least <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Bingo... see other EU topic. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
How so? Mercenaries are people hired out from other places to fight for your country. Could you elaborate on that I find it interesting.
How so? Mercenaries are people hired out from other places to fight for your country. Could you elaborate on that I find it interesting. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not too famliar with the subject so some french person will probably soon come and set me up straight but a good example would be French legion. Anyone can join it, he will be trained to fight and he doesn't have to have any bonds to France. They just hire random people to fight in their army for periods of time. In some other countries like in German, 18 year old male population goes in to army(or civil service) for a year or less and then some of them stay there. It's those peoples job. French army is full of freelancers which is more expensive than paying basic salary to long period workers(soldiers). Hard to elaborate something you don't know accurately <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Edit: MonsE corrected me. I was under the impression that the whole army of France was mercenaries, and that's what costs so much. Seemed irrational to me too <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
How so? Mercenaries are people hired out from other places to fight for your country. Could you elaborate on that I find it interesting. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not too famliar with the subject so some french person will probably soon come and set me up straight but a good example would be French legion. Anyone can join it, he will be trained to fight and he doesn't have to have any bonds to France. They just hire random people to fight in their army for periods of time. In some other countries like in German, 18 year old male population goes in to army(or civil service) for a year or less and then some of them stay there. It's those peoples job. French army is full of freelancers which is more expensive than paying basic salary to long period workers(soldiers). Hard to elaborate something you don't know accurately <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Edit: MonsE corrected me. I was under the impression that the whole army of France was mercenaries, and that's what costs so much. Seemed irrational to me too <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didnt think the Foreign Legion took anyone anymore Beu Geste style. I thought they were more along the lines of ST6 etc - except mercenary style.
Wouldn't it be hilarious if 30 years from now we stood infront of the New UN HQ, located in Brisbane Australia (mah citeh), and all stood looking at a simple plaque in front of the building. Simply masonry, with symbols chipped into it. Symbols which read:
<a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=51218' target='_blank'>http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/in...ST&f=28&t=51218</a>