
I Love the U.N., but It Is Failing - guylepage3
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/opinion/sunday/i-love-the-un-but-it-is-failing.html
======
roymurdock
Related article: Don't be a UN Intern

 _First thing’s first. You should understand the objectives of the
organization you’re trying to join. There are three primary objectives of the
UN system today. The first one is to pay the salaries and the perks of its
employees. The second is to give them a microcosm in which they can walk
around in suits, look important, use buzzwords, and basically find some,
however contrived, meaning. The third one is to make it seem like there is an
international political system out there, a framework of rules that everyone
respects. This last one is increasingly optional in the post-Cold War
geopolitical climate.

...

Your globetrotting, world-saving dream job doesn’t exist. It hasn’t existed
for a while. The world has been explored – it no longer needs explorers, and
especially doesn’t need faceless bureaucrats. It needs people who do things.
Even if, through blackmail, magic rituals or blind luck, you land a UN job
somehow, you will not be part of the world elite – far, far from it. You will
push paper watching your years go by; your sole obsession will be sucking up
to your neurotic supervisor in the hope of seeing your grade increase by a
small notch five years down the road; you will wake up at 55 wondering where
your professional life has gone. And that’s even discounting the remote
possibility that the funding countries come along and say “Ok guys, the show’s
been great, now pack it up and go home, you’re not needed anymore.”_

[https://desertqueensarah.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/dont-
be-a-...](https://desertqueensarah.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/dont-be-a-un-
intern/)

~~~
drzaiusapelord
>This last one is increasingly optional in the post-Cold War geopolitical
climate.

Considering Russia and China are casually annexing territories, its pretty
obvious this framework no longer exists. The UN made sense when the security
council members had some incentive to use the UN system, but when their
foreign policy is to circumvent international law at any opportunity, then its
easy for them to sidestep it. Autocratic states ultimately can't work with
democratic ones. Its unfair to expect one group to 'follow the rules' and
another to go off willy-nilly when it serves them. There's no enforcer here,
they're supposed to be voluntarily enforcing themselves and obviously that's
not happening.

I won't even go into how easy it is for democratic nations to game the system
either. Bush's run up to Iraq had all the hallmarks of the 'legitimate' UN: a
debate, an airing of evidence, a vote, etc. Ultimately, it was just as hollow
as an autocratic state annexing territory and telling everyone to piss off.

I suspect the UN has long fallen into pageantry and will never recover. It
probably made sense to keep the US and the USSR from nuking each other, but
today it lacks purpose and any real spirit of participation. It now exists to
bully smaller nations who don't have a permanent seat in the security council,
and because of that, it will never go away.

~~~
hackuser
> Considering Russia and China are casually annexing territories, its pretty
> obvious this framework no longer exists

A pretty big overstatement. The only cross-border war between nations I can
think of is Russia and Ukraine. If perfection is our standard, then of course
the UN and everything else is a failure. Otherwise, the UN is doing this job
effectively.

> The UN made sense when the security council members had some incentive to
> use the UN system, but when their foreign policy is to circumvent
> international law at any opportunity, then its easy for them to sidestep it.
> Autocratic states ultimately can't work with democratic ones. Its unfair to
> expect one group to 'follow the rules' and another to go off willy-nilly
> when it serves them. There's no enforcer here, they're supposed to be
> voluntarily enforcing themselves and obviously that's not happening.

The golden age you imagine never existed. It's always been this way. This is
the way the UN, and politics in general, works. I wish it were otherwise and
we should work to improve it, but it does work, unless we measure it by the
standards of ideals and perfection - and then what human institution (or human
being) measures up?

~~~
jussij
>> Considering Russia and China are casually annexing territories, its pretty
obvious this framework no longer exists

> A pretty big overstatement. The only cross-border war between nations I can
> think of is Russia and Ukraine.

Russia is not at war with Ukraine. Russia is just running a covert action in
Ukraine in an attempt to destabilize it's democratically elected government.

Russia has never like the fact Ukraine decided to leave the Soviet Union.

I suspect the reference to China refers to how China is unilaterally taking
ownership of the South China Sea using it military strength, with total
disregard to international law.

It might also be in reference to how China handles Tibet, or how they are
trying to kill democracy in Hong Kong, or maybe how they have their eyes on
Taiwan where they claim it is rightfully theirs.

> The golden age you imagine never existed. It's always been this way. This is
> the way the UN, and politics in general, works. I wish it were otherwise and
> we should work to improve it, but it does work

I suspect drzaiusapelord disagrees with you when you say it is working and I
would say I tend to agree with him.

The modern day UN is nothing more than a very expensive bureaucracy that in
reality achieves very little.

Maybe it has never worked?

~~~
hackuser
> Russia is not at war with Ukraine. Russia is just running a covert action in
> Ukraine in an attempt to destabilize it's democratically elected government.

Russian troops invaded Ukraine, killed thousands (more?) Ukrainians, conquered
a large part of its territory and people, and organize, supply, train, and
fight along side an open rebellion.

I'm not sure what else to call that but invasion and war. The Russian and
Ukrainian goernments avoid that term right now because both want a cease fire.

~~~
jussij
I do realize that _Russian troops invaded Ukraine_ but they are not at war
(i.e. war has not been declared).

Ask Putin are Russia soldiers in the Ukraine he will say no.

Ask him if Russia is supporting fighters in Ukraine with weapons he will say
no.

Ask him is Russia at war with Ukraine he will say no.

That is exactly why the UN is so hopeless. Everyone knows the answer to those
questions is YES and Russia is effectively at war with the Ukraine, but all he
has to do is deny it.

Ukraine has even gone to the UN asking for help, but nothing is done, only
because the UN is such a toothless tiger.

The big world players, USA, Russia and China do as they please, regardless of
what the UN or the rest of the world thinks.

~~~
hackuser
The UN Security Council is designed to reflect the actual, not the desired
power in the world (as I understand it). For example, when the UN was
established Stalin's Soviet Union was given the highest status, a permanent
seat and a veto on the Security Council. It's a mechanism for the powers to
resolve differences and act when possible. Whether we like them or not, China
and Russia have the power to afffect the world, and we need a way to deal with
them as peacefully and effectively as possible.

The UN represents the will of the world's powers, for good or ill. As Russia
has the status of one of the five leading powers and another, China, does not
oppose them in this matter, the will of the world's powers is not what we
would like regarding Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

In other issues, the world's powers do agree. Two examples are Iran's and
North Korea's nuclear programs. Another is the recent Ebola epidemic in West
Africa.

BTW, you'll note that the Europeans and the U.S. also don't refer to it as war
or invasion. I"m pretty sure it's because they don't want to escalate the
situation, and neither does Ukraine. If it escalates, more innocents die, more
is destroyed, and Ukraine loses even more than they already have.

------
hackuser
To a great degree, these complaints should be familiar to anyone in a large
bureaucracy: Endless procedure, imcompetence that can't be fired, decisions
made for political reasons, etc.

Now imagine a bureaucracy run by and accountable to all the national
government bureaucracies in the world! And remember that the ones most HN
readers live under are, despite our whining, the most efficient and least
corrupt in the world - the others are often far worse.

That's the UN. If you are going to have an association of the world's
governments, I think that's the way it's going to be.

Like democracy, it's horrible but better than all the alternatives. It's
primary purpose, IIRC, is to prevent international war (i.e., wars between
nations, as opposed to civil wars). After all the war of human history, after
WWI and WWII occurring within a 31 year period (think of that: that's like
1985 until today!), international war has almost been put to an end. It's now
a major exception when it happens, and that fact is really a miracle.

They also achieve many other very important things, though expensively and
slowly.

Remember that the UN is no fuzzy-minded idealist's fantasy. It was built by
the survivors of WWII and WWI, while the ashes were still smoldering. Those
people knew far more of war and the realities of man's inhumanity than we can
imagine.

~~~
brashrat
I agree with most of what you said about the bureaucracy, but the Pax
Americana was achieved the old fashioned way, the same way as the preceding
Pax Brittanica and the Pax Romana, to put it crudely, "Peace through superior
firepower."

The real question is, does the UN or anything like the UN have role going
forward, or must we suffer further degradations till we may arrive to some Pax
Sino.

I've often speculated in my head about the desirabilty of closing down the UN
to replace it with a "United Democracies" based as much on the carrot of trade
as much as on any cudgels, but I think that's just a fantasy, you're always
going to run into problems like "should Turkey be in or out of the EU and/or
NATO, which way are they headed", and when do you ever let Russia or China in.

~~~
rlongstaff
Although the idea of a 'United Democracies' or whatever it gets called sounds
appealing, it has many flaws.

One of which you highlighted regarding what constitutes a democracy - some
could even argue that the Electoral College in the USA means it isn't a true
democracy!

Others are what legitimacy it would have in relation to countries that aren't
members. Why should those countries care or co-operate with the organisation?
Likely it would end up with UD trying to impose its will by force, which is a
backwards step.

Furthermore, just because a country is a democracy doesn't mean it is
automatically superior to every respect and entitled to adopt the high ground.
Many democratic countries around the world have engaged in human rights
abuses, started wars and interfered with other sovereign countries to install
leaders who push their interests over that of the citizens. There is the
danger that said countries in the UD would end up turning a blind eye to each
other abuses because they, by definition, "wouldn't do that sort of thing".

~~~
brbsix
One of the more positive aspects of hereditary monarchies is that their rulers
are invested in the long-term success of their kingdoms. Democratically
elected rulers have no such incentive. Instead, they promise favors to donors
and their electorate, start never-end wars (wars on drugs, wars on poverty,
wars on hunger, wars on literacy) for which the costs are socialized and the
profits privatized (particularly by companies in which they have interest).
Democratically elected politicians remind me of people who strip the
appliances and wiring out of their homes as they are being evicted.

------
gavman
The UN has a lot of problems beyond just its bureaucracy. I'm suspicious of
it's ability to solve the problems it claims it exists to solve even if its
bureaucracy was extremely efficient. It seems I read UN scandals on a monthly
basis, to recall a few from the past few months:

Sexual abuse by it's peacekeepers
([http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/world/2016/02/27/peacekeepe...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/world/2016/02/27/peacekeepers/)).
"Child sexual abuse by UN peacekeepers" even has its own wiki page
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse_by_UN_peace...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse_by_UN_peacekeepers))

Bribes are abound, even a story earlier today
([http://www.seattletimes.com/business/humanitarian-worker-
cha...](http://www.seattletimes.com/business/humanitarian-worker-charged-in-
united-nations-bribery-scheme/), [http://nypost.com/2015/10/06/former-general-
assembly-preside...](http://nypost.com/2015/10/06/former-general-assembly-
president-charged-in-un-corruption-scandal/)).

Saudi Arabia is on the human rights council
([http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/22/why-is-
saud...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/22/why-is-saudi-arabia-
heading-the-u-n-human-rights-council.html)). Not exactly a "scandal" but in
the same vein.

It's ever-increasingly hard to take the organization seriously.

~~~
vixen99
Its ability. It's is a contraction for it is or it has.

~~~
habitue
I have a feeling the parent commenter knows the rule, but didn't care to
follow it. Your comment seems like someone who walks up to every smoker they
see and says "Did you know smoking causes cancer?"

~~~
stcredzero
_I have a feeling the parent commenter knows the rule, but didn 't care to
follow it._

I have that feeling as well. It's a truly horrible thought.

~~~
habitue
it's just grammar, not anything horrible

~~~
stcredzero
It's not the grammar that's horrible. It's the underlying attitude and its
shortsightedness.

------
CWuestefeld
AIUI, the UN's mission is twofold:

* Stand up for the sovereignty of the world's nations.

* Defend human rights throughout the world.

These missions are in direct conflict. It's impossible to force states to play
nice with human rights, while at the same time respect the sovereignty of
these states.

What we're left with is just like the conflict in 2001's HAL-9000. Given two
conflicting goals, bad things happen. Neither objective is fulfilled, and the
system fails in all kinds of other ways too.

~~~
bcg1
It is not a contradiction, it is a sham. To wit:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 29, section 3: "These rights
and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and
principles of the United Nations." [1]

[1]:
[http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng...](http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf)

------
whatyoucantsay
The UN is a joke.

It breaks its own rules by refusing entry to a country with a vibrant
democracy and a roughly comparable population and GDP as Australia—Taiwan.
Why? Because China has a veto. Consequently, not only will the UN continue
breaking its own guidelines and refusing Taiwan entry but it will also never
condemn China's repeated threats of invasion.

Similar dynamics play out interests concerning other veto wielding countries
such as the US or Russia.

~~~
hackuser
> Why? Because China has a veto ... Similar dynamics play out interests
> concerning other veto wielding countries such as the US or Russia.

Think of the UN as a mechnism for de facto powers to resolve conflicts and
come to agreements _peacefully_ ; that's the UN's purpose, to prevent another
major war.

Justice would be great, but at least the catastrophe of war is prevented.
Remember of the incredible destruction of WWII and now imagine what modern
technology would do - even without nuclear weapons.

Also, Taiwan's official policy is that they are not a separate country but a
part of China, with a separate government. That is the agreement worked out
between the US, China and Taiwan.

~~~
argonaut
You need to be much more clear. The Republic of China's official policy is
they are part of China, the geographical/historical/cultural entity. They have
never said they are a part of the People's Republic of China. That is the
agreement worked out between US, the PRC, and the ROC (note you said it was
worked out between US, _China_ , and Taiwan, which is inaccurate).

This may seem overly pedantic, but _it is not_. This wording is the entire
backbone of the delicate geopolitical dance that underlies the status quo we
have today.

~~~
meric
Clarifying, not disagreeing; The ROC constitution has historically insisted
the territories of mainland China and Taiwan are administered by the ROC. The
stance is exactly the same as the PRC.

------
cies
Unrelated to the article: I like the "U" but not the "N". I'm hoping that if
we get to ever have a world wide office of any kind, that it will represent
"people" instead of "nations". Nations go to war. People are either (1)
(ab)used to fight them in name of their nations, or (2) merely trying to
protect themselves. The number 1 mostly happens while somehow convincing
people of number 2.

Anyway I wish for a "UP", United People, to arise from the ashes of the "UN".
Yes, a people movement.

~~~
brbsix
So world government? Some of the most powerful people on the planet have been
openly advocating for such a system for quite some time. If such a system is
created, I certainly wouldn't expect it to be in the interest of "the people".
Any time you consolidate such power, it is naturally co-opted by those who
already have power. Perhaps advanced ledger technology can help keep things
relatively democratic but this all sounds very dangerous.

~~~
cies
I agree. But then I see problems on this planet that cannot be solved locally.

And.. How flawed it's implementations until now may have been, I still believe
in democracy as the best possible option. The "ledger tech" you mention is
what could be used to keep the democracy direct (instead of representative).
The thought of a world wide digital referendum on some issue, with proper
cryptographic underpinnings, this makes sense to me.

I think the UN is somehow a step towards a one-world-gov't as OK'ed by the
"most powerful"; they like the nations as that where they have their power
vested, so the UN will protect their interests in the end.

The "United People", as I proposed, should actually reduce their power and put
in the hands of the people.

------
gyardley
I've coincidentally been on a couple trips with mid- and low-level UN
bureaucrats, and when they got talking, this is exactly what they said - the
organization is hidebound, sclerotic, and all-around useless.

God, the horror stories - even if they're only partially true, there's no
reason whatsoever for the United States (or any other country) to be funding
such a broken organization.

~~~
oldmanjay
Get a view into the workings of the United States government at some point and
let us know which is better or worse

~~~
shaftoe
With April 15 coming, it wouldn't be hard to convince me that there's no
reason to fund THAT broken organization either.

~~~
thisislame
This sort of glib disregard for the legitimate function of government plays
into the hand of those who benefit directly from a dysfunctional government.

Put another way, it's YOUR government. When was the last time you engaged with
it constructively as a citizen? Especially at the local and state levels where
individuals can make a constructive difference without becoming full-time
activists, lobbyists or politicians?

~~~
afarrell
Alternately, 18F

------
akhatri_aus
The key reason for it's failings according to this author is the bureaucracy.

One of the reasons the UN was created or transformed out of the league of
nations was to prevent world war by providing an avenue of negotiation. By its
founding purpose I think it has not done too badly.

There's a moral duty the UN seems to have, but this is an extra purpose to the
UN. There are organisations that don't need the echo chambers of other nations
that can do the same things, such as doctors without borders.

~~~
tptacek
The author seems to have foreseen that response and gone to pains to point out
_gratuitous_ bureaucracy, such as the requirement to wait almost a year to
bring new medical staff on to combat the ebola epidemic.

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "the requirement to wait almost a year to bring new medical staff on to
combat the ebola epidemic."

Are you getting this from another source because it doesn't seem to be
mentioned in the article. It mentions taking several weeks to process the
forms of a medical worker they needed to see at headquarters. The recruitment
system that may take a year to hire someone seems to be a separate issue. I
wish the author had went into more detail on that because it's very vague.
What is the hiring process? Are two or three interview spread over a year? Do
you have to interview several hundred people for a position? It's hard to
place any importance on the statistic without more information.

------
mwsherman
Bureaucracy of this sort begins with the belief that systems are designed _a
priori_ by rules.

I am sure that most of the personnel policies that the author alludes to are
well-meaning and intuitive. What is out of scope in such rule-making is the
empirical outcome. The cost of delay (213 days to hire) is apparently not a
factor in the rules.

They lose a lot of good people in a presumed attempt to ensure they hire good
people. Such an outcome is only recognized _a posteriori_.

------
anonbanker
This is an extremely biased article. Having been involved in numerous Hague
Convention proceedings, UNCITRAL Arbitration proceedings, and witnessing the
current treaty renegotiation efforts of my governments with regard to drug
legalization[0][1], I see the United Nations succeeding.

The United States, and it's media arm (NYT being part of it), have been
visibly anti-UN pretty much since Clinton left office. Take it from an
expatriate: The UN is pretty awesome, once you're out of the confines of the
Lower 48.

0\. [http://idpc.net/events/2016/02/ipu-un-parliamentary-event-
ac...](http://idpc.net/events/2016/02/ipu-un-parliamentary-event-action-on-
drugs)

1\. [http://idpc.net/policy-advocacy/the-un-general-assembly-
spec...](http://idpc.net/policy-advocacy/the-un-general-assembly-special-
session-on-drugs-ungass-2016)

------
jacquesm
If all the member states would live up to the charter it would do a lot better
than it does. Another big problem is veto power abuse in the security council.

~~~
gohrt
If all the member states would live up to the charter, would you even need a
charter?

~~~
r00fus
The problem is the security council states (ie, the big 8) simply abuse their
veto to prevent any repercussions of violations.

It's a system without any enforcement.

------
UhUhUhUh
Reading the UN declaration of 1948 helps to put things in perspective. It
hangs on my wall.

~~~
igravious
I wish I were that idealistic. But I appreciate the sentiment. In a similar
vein I had a Peters† Projection map on my wall for a very long time.

† [http://www.petersmap.com/](http://www.petersmap.com/) (the Mercartor
Projection makes the political north look way larger than it actually is, the
Peters Projection is an area accurate map. Specifically, Africa and Brazil are
waaaay bigger than you'd think folks!)

Link to UN Declaration on Human Rights. Let's all be a little bit more
idealistic :) [http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-
rights/](http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/)

------
13thLetter
You just have to count up how much time the UN spends focusing on Israel as
opposed to _every other country in the world_ to realize that it not merely
broken, but genuinely in the hands of the bad guys.

~~~
igravious
Rubbish. It is exactly _because_ the situation regarding Palestine and Israel
is so atrocious, so unendingly violent, such a blight on the region that the
issues keep resurfacing.

The UN doesn't focus on _every other country in the world_ because no other
country in the world is occupying a territory it has no claim to and randomly
destroys the infrastructure of the occupied territory and uses lethal force
against its people.

source: I heard an ex-Israeli soldier who is proud of his country speak about
this at length.
[http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/](http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/)

~~~
yuvalr1
You are clearly wrong. By any mean and comparable criteria, the situation in
Israel is far less worse than in any other conflict in the world.

The most trivial comparable criteria is probably the number of casualties in
the conflict. If you look at the number of the Palestinian casualties during
the Israeli-Arab conflict, and compare it with the number of casualties in any
other conflict in the world (such as US's war in Iraq, NATO's war in Kosovo,
The war in Syria, The massacre in Sudan, and sadly many other places), you'll
see that the Israeli-Arab conflict is far less deadly than those any other
conflicts. If only the UN would have given all the other conflicts in the
world as much attention as it gives the Israeli-Arab conflict, many people's
lives would have been saved. But the UN doesn't. That's probably because the
UN's committee of human rights is controlled by states that, let's just say,
don't care too much about human rights.

By the way, the organization you linked to is considered biased and unreliable
in Israel. This organization "collects" evidences about supposed crimes that
Israeli soldiers supposedly committed, but mysteriously refuses to share those
evidences with any authority in Israel, despite requests from the legal
authorities for such evidences in order to open an investigation and put the
soldiers to trial. This organization claims that it has evidences for supposed
crimes, but instead of passing those evidences to enable the trial of those
who committed the crime, the people of the organization prefer touring around
the world telling fishy horror stories, while trying to generalize and present
all the Israeli soldiers as criminals. Reasonably, this raises an eyebrow or
two about the reliability of those stories.

------
julie1
Funny. The ancester of UN (LN
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations#General_weak...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations#General_weaknesses))
failed with the same symptoms.

Created after WWI to prevent another WW it was disbanded after failing to
prevent WWII

So, is anyone here implying we go for WWIII ?

Let me guess.... Milgram experiment is about the submission to authority....
The biggest problems right now is about the impoverishment of the workers and
the "rich getting richer", but at the opposite of the time between WWI and
WWII no one is proposing to prevent what generated WWII. (Mussolini and Hitler
were elected notably to break the unions to help the companies stop losing
values on paying these greedy workers diminishing the dividends)

So .... you really want people to go in the streets and ask that one hour
worked should be payed, that tax are equally applied and demand that
government do what the people ask?

You want the revolution in China, Europa, USA, Canada, Africa .... everywhere
except Buthan maybe?

Seriously. This world is fine. With a 300$ phone in your pocket and the right
app you can solve everything.

------
rmchugh
Are there any meaningful opportunities for human rights minded developers in
organisations such as this? Put another way, should idealistic developers
consider careers in such organisations? If so, which ones and how?

------
CristianMazzei
I read this article with deep interest; it presents a pretty negative image of
the United Nations as a bureaucratic giant unable to deliver due to a handful
of incompetent staff and lack of proper management mechanisms. I am concerned
about the negative impacts of such image can have to the wide public and those
committed UN staff who are tirelessly working in non-family/hardship duty
stations and reaching out to the most vulnerable.

I would like instead to share a brighter view, based on my working experience
in various parts of the organization (including the Secretariat and other UN
agencies)both at the Headquarters and in the field.

The UN is an immense political machinery, controlled by Members States, tasked
with the most noble and difficult missions that an organization was ever
mandated in the history. The UN is also comprised of myriads of different
agencies, funds and programme with very different mandates, administrative
capacities and organizational culture. It is too simplistic to lump together
what is different.

Huge organizations, such as the UN, require rules and procedures to ensure
transparency to its constituents. Bureaucracy creates these additional, more
often cumbersome, layers. Bureaucracy is indeed a pain and, of course,
processes can be simplified and streamlined. However, such changes do not come
overnight as they require change of mind among the organization's staff,
especially the “old guard”.This does not mean that the work of the
organization should stop or colleagues should quit. In fact there are ways to
"play along with the "administrative vortexes”; for example, a deep knowledge
of the rules and regulations, advance planning and proactive actions can
accelerate processes. A staff member will not get frustrated or get his/her
submission rejected if he/she knew exactly what are the steps required, what
documents to submit etc. Yes, we should focus more on the
substantive/programmatic work which we are responsible to deliver, but as we
are all very knowledgeable and quick to process our salary reimbursement
claims, we could also do the same for the required administrative processes
that are being mentioned in the article.

Once I was asked during an interview how I would overcome bottlenecks caused
by bureaucracy. I responded, knowing the procedures, acting on time, using the
right templates, following up with the right people, being motivated and
having a good dose of patience can help in accelerating the process, at least
the part of it I am in control, and will eventually lead to faster results. I
did get that job.

Recruitment processes take forever. Most of the time this is true and it takes
even more time and efforts to deploy competent staff during an emergency.
Again, some UN organizations do better than others. For example, some
organizations such as UNICEF has "fast track" recruitment procedures for
emergency recruitments allowing staff deployment within weeks. UNFPA maintains
rosters of pre-vetted candidates that successfully passed 2 days intensive
screening. DPKO also keeps roster of pre-screened candidates which enables the
organization to deploy staff in 3 months rather than taking 9-12 months as per
regular recruitment. It is possible, I have witnesses once my successor being
deployed within 3 months from my transfer notification. Indeed there are ways
for improvement, especially by learning from where things works better.

There is nothing more atrocious than peacekeepers committing abusive acts to
the same people they are supposed to protect. This is a major challenge for
the UN, as it casts discredits to the entire organization as a whole,
including those that are risking their lives daily to create a better world.
Therefore, there should be zero tolerance for such abuses and the perpetrators
should be properly condemned. At the same time, it is disappointing that most
of the media coverage focuses on UN misconduct, committed by a few, rather
than on what we do right.

However I wish to point out that most of these abuses are carried out by
military personnel serving in peacekeeping missions. The UN does not have a
standing military force and depends on the willing of countries to deploy
their national troops temporary (normally 6-12 months) to serve under the UN
flag (and their own flag), and fight someone else's wars. Consequently, these
soldiers are national citizens, who bring their own training and culture to
the UN, and when they commit these abuses they should be considered as such
too. I have witnessed cases when abuses committed by just one or two soldiers
resulted in the entire company (hundred soldiers) repatriating.

The majority of peacekeepers perform a tremendous job by ensuring peace in
war-torns parts of this planet, far from their families, risking their life
daily to defend peace but still too often unnoticed. This is what I would like
to emphasize.

In conclusion, the UN needs constant improvement. It is up to its staff. Those
who have served for long can help taking stock of the best practices of the
organization's legacy with an eye to future challenges. It is also up to the
organization’s newcomers, preferably more from the -outside- such as private
sector, government secondment, to bring innovative ideas, enthusiasm and help
the UN to keep up with the pace of a fast evolving world.

I believe this brighter view of the UN would be more beneficial to bring the
necessary change to the United Nations.

------
dellsystem
Kenneth Cain, a former UN human rights lawyer, wrote a piece in a similar
vein:
[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/apr/03/theobserver1](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/apr/03/theobserver1)
It was written over a decade ago but some of the points mentioned still feel
very familiar today.

------
rwmj
Interesting article about the political shenanigans surrounding the UN
Commission on Narcotic Drugs, going on in Vienna at the moment:

[http://politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/03/15/the-un-fades-into-
irr...](http://politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/03/15/the-un-fades-into-irrelevance-
in-the-war-on-drugs)

~~~
bbanyc
That commission isn't just advisory like many (most?) UN bodies. It holds full
power to schedule and deschedule controlled substances under the major drug
treaties, and member nations (which include practically every country) are
obligated to conform national law to the treaty schedules.

We'll see just how strong those treaties are. When the US led the drug war
this was how we forced the rest of the world along. Can Russia, China, etc. do
the same?

------
matthewmcg
Do these problems with the top level UN organization extend to its specialized
sub-organizations like the WHO or the ICAO? From what I can see those are less
flashy but do a workmanlike job coordinating intergovernmental efforts in
important fields.

~~~
lucaspiller
I'm a contractor for another UN-organisation, and it's the same situation
here. My contract was extended, but it took forever to get approval due to
beuracracy, so I was out of work for a week. Another developer has been off
for two weeks and is still waiting for his renewal. I work in the IT
department, so maybe it's different in the field.

------
hunvreus
The UN and many similar organizations in the non-profit/non-
governmental/humanitarian/development space simply lack the incentive
structure to do the right thing. Add to this the administrative weight of
large organizations and you have the perfect recipe for an unbelievable shit
show.

I hope that more organization like Watsi [1] or ONE [2] emerge and take
donations away from more traditional and established non-profits, but I won't
be holding my breath for it.

At the end of the day, the private sector probably yields more positive
impact.

[1]: [https://watsi.org/](https://watsi.org/)

[2]: [http://one.org](http://one.org)

------
ende
The UN is probably better described as "The WW2 Winning Team + associates".
Please adjust expectations from here on out accordingly.

------
abpavel
6-member permanent security council members with veto ensures that nothing
related to their interests is passed. It also shows who governs U.N.

------
orkida
what would you do if you were that assistsnt secretary to fix the un?

please i need an answer

------
orkida
what would you do if you were that assistant secretary to fix the un?

please i need an answer

------
joshuaheard
The human species has a long way to go.

