

UN caused deadly cholera in Haiti, covered it up, lawsuit says - devx
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/08/20874045-un-caused-deadly-cholera-in-haiti-covered-it-up-lawsuit-says?lite

======
mseebach
Being shielded from criticism and responsibility is the root of all evil and
having a good mission does nothing to change that - if anything, it aggravates
it: When you believe what you're doing is Unequivocally Good(tm), you're more
likely to see through transgressions in the pursuit of the greater good.

The UN, like various police forces, the NSA, the military forces in Iraq and
Afghanistan are all committed to very commendable ends, some obviously more
successfully than others. Even if they do enjoy some level of legal immunity
from direct responsibility, that privilege must come with a strong and
unambiguous demand that all transgressions are investigated throughly, justice
is served and lessons are applied to avoid future transgressions.

Even if the contamination was an unfortunate mistake, the cover-up (if the
complainants are right) was a grave crime and no level of good-doing can
excuse that.

~~~
waps
It is arguable if the UN actually does good. The "UN", then by name of "League
of Nations" was the organisation behind the treaty of Versailles, and
therefore carries at least some of the blame for causing WWII.

When it renamed itself to "United Nations", here's how it got started :

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Operation_in_the...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Operation_in_the_Congo)

I've heard this UN operation described to me by some people who survived it.

1) black revolt. Small amounts of damage occur. Police generally have things
under control. The police, ultimately reports to a colonial government, so the
UN feels pressured to step in, and the colonial government gets paid off to
let them step in.

2) the UN "judges fairly" that a white government can't be trusted to get
things right, so they have to pull out. This despite the fact that the people
on the ground are overwhelmingly (black) locals, and they already had
significant amounts of local authority, with promises from the colonial
government for expansion of that authority. The local colonial governor and
army leadership refuse to give up control because of the shear stupidity of
the UN's organisation (the UN didn't think it necessary to have the police
force commanded on the same continent as it was operated, and didn't even
bother to respond to requests for who to turn over control to), with support
from the locals.

3) UN sends in racist "peacekeepers". Their first action : shoot whatever is
black and holds a gun. That turned out to be the police force, "whoops,
apologies". Several blue helmet basis were accused of organising group rapes
of the locals (this accusation, by the way, keeps coming back in later UN
operations. They are accused of doing this in Congo, Western Sahara, Sudan,
Mali and several other places. The UN does not see this as a reason to stop
sending in the very same troops, and to date there have been zero convictions,
except of course in local jurisdictions)

4) UN withdraws (as if they somehow didn't know what would happen next).

5) situation : the police force has been partially massacred, and is obviously
no longer defending the cities, and has a serious grudge against the
government. The local population up in arms because their family members got
shot for being black. The rebels, of course, also up in arms because of this,
as they've lost family to the UN's guns just the same. This, of course,
resulted in an attack on the cities by the rebels.

6) total devastation. Tens of thousands dead. Famine and disease reign for
almost 2 decades. Needless to say, the UN did not see fit to help at this
point.

TLDR: A country was having problems with people from the countryside taking up
arms against the cities. The UN comes n, shoots up the local police force
because they're black, and pulls out.

Needless to say, you will not find this operation on their site. They have
fought tooth and nail not to be held responsible (against the locals), and for
the soldiers involved to go free.

The country STILL has not fully recovered from the UN action in the 1960s.
Needless to say, the UN goes blameless despite everyone, including the UN
itself, agreeing that they hold responsibility for significant damage (they
paid for a tiny amount of it).

This is the UN, plain and simple. They are evil profiteers who don't care
about anything that isn't front and center in the news. They are an
organisation dedicated to paying off foreign officials, hiring their children,
... to get favours, and they keep getting accused of gang-raping the locals
wherever they go in Africa, in addition to a massacre every decade or so.
Political correctness uber alles, and they can obviously not concern
themselves with the consequences of their actions. They should have been held
responsible and disbanded for this one action alone.

~~~
vacri
And yet, since the creation of the UN, there has been little in the way of
open war (let alone total war) between the planet's major military powers, a
significant departure from the pattern that humanity had shown until then.

This is not to cover over the dark chapters in the UN's history, but it is far
from "This is the UN, plain and simple".

~~~
judk
Hmm, what else happened in 1945? Oh yeah, nuclear bombs.

~~~
weichi
The UN was founded after the nuclear bombs were dropped.

------
beloch
This case is similar to one where a doctor with hepatitis accidentally cuts
himself while operating on a person to save his or her life. That person's
life is saved, but now he has hepatitis. The doctor should not be held
responsible for an accident and should be given credit for saving a life, but
he should be responsible for reporting the accident and ensuring that the
patient is tested so that he can be treated and doesn't spread the disease to
others. Accidents happen, but if UN staff covered it up when they could have
taken steps to control the spread of disease... Well, that's not good. Still,
it should be individuals on trial here, not an international organization. I
sincerely doubt it is official UN policy to spread cholera in disaster areas
and then cover it up.

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "This case is similar to one where a doctor with hepatitis accidentally
cuts himself while operating on a person to save his or her life. That
person's life is saved, but now he has hepatitis. The doctor should not be
held responsible for an accident and should be given credit for saving a
life..."

Is this even allowed? Why would a doctor with hepatitis be allowed to operate?

~~~
roel_v
This is not about an actual doctor, it's a rhetorical device to make a point.
But to assuage your worries, add to the hypothetical 'the doctor contracted
hepatitis the night before and didn't know yet he was infected when he
operated'. (cue comments on incubation period of hepatitis...)

------
mjolk
Okay, so let's say that the UN didn't go in to help. What would be the
response then? Outrage from Haitians that the UN didn't come to their aid? Why
not the outrage at their own government for not being able to handle a
national disaster?

"(Cholera) has now spread to Venezuela, Cuba and the Dominican Republic, and
has now killed more than 8,500 people."

If we're thinking about this pragmatically, the world attention paid to Haiti
during the flood saved far more than that number of people, even those not
directly hit by the earthquake and instead were living with diseases that are
prevalent in the third world.

We can split hairs over the effectiveness of the UN or international
intervention, but before we start the ranting to the tone of hackernews
isolationist/libertarian politics, keep in mind that Haiti is such a mess that
we're still talking in terms of the broad good. Anyone that criticizes the
role of the UN in this instance is a vulture looking to profit off of a
natural disaster in a corrupt nation.

~~~
earless1
>If we're thinking about this pragmatically, the world attention paid to Haiti
during the flood saved far more than that number of people, even those not
directly hit by the earthquake and instead were living with diseases that are
prevalent in the third world.

So because they may have saved more than 8500 lives in the same time frame we
should ignore this? The issue at hand is not whether the UN has or has not
done good in Haiti. The issue is that they reintroduced a disease which had
been eradicated in this region hundreds of years ago due to their own
negligence. They then lied about it and tried to impede the investigation.

~~~
mjolk
>The issue at hand is not whether the UN has or has not done good in Haiti.

Actually, it kind of is. Haiti is a special case. It's so corrupt that the US
stopped giving them money. We (the USA) were giving them 1.5 billion dollars
and stopped because we knew that barely any of that money was getting to
people that needed it. Which is to say that things are desperate and the world
needs to act quickly when a bad thing happens there.

> The issue is that they reintroduced a disease which had been eradicated in
> this region hundreds of years ago due to their own negligence. They then
> lied about it and tried to impede the investigation.

This is alleged from a lawsuit from a very corrupt country. Stop talking about
this like it's a kid that knocked over a glass of milk and won't admit it.

------
pessimizer
Intervention in Haiti has been a disaster.

Here's a history of it: [http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/relief-and-
reconstructio...](http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/relief-and-
reconstruction-watch/)

And of cholera: [http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/relief-and-
reconstructio...](http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/relief-and-
reconstruction-watch/not-doing-enough-summary)

------
dylz
Why is the UN immune to everything?

~~~
bsullivan01
Because mistakes happen and usually go when it's a horrible situation. If they
got sued for every little thing, nothing would be done when it came to
humanitarian help. UN should offer some sort of settlement but not to create a
precedent. Imagine if you went to help a family during a tornado and they sued
you because you hurt someone's arm by pulling them or accidentally broke a
family heirloom.

~~~
andreasvc
But that's a blanket argument, it could apply to any organization that offers
help. It is unclear to me why it would be in the interest of anyone but the UN
for the UN to have immunity.

~~~
pgeorgi
Which is why in some countries giving aid actually _does_ grant you legally
immunity against claims over mistakes or accidents that happened while doing
so.

That includes first aid by laymen at the roadside and of course extends to
international organisations.

But in those cases, any attempt to cover up problems would likely reduce the
protection (because it's not in good faith anymore)

------
iluvuspartacus
Just remember, this is not an argument against the UN.

It's an argument for letting people live their lives.

The USA had to do a second coup to get their 'beloved' President Aristide out
of power. (the second one with the help of Canadian troops, no less).

Canada and then the UN were the follow through. The real reason? They were not
compliant with foreign investment interests. (Arguments at corruption or vote
rigging are so flaccid and transparent that I won't even bother.) Also I
should mention that young men streaming across the Dominican border armed by
the USA don't count as a popular uprising.

Take Gildan activewear as an example. They have uppity garment workers in
Montreal, so they create excess production facilities in Honduras. Then the
Hondurans get uppity and they create excess production facilities in Haiti
(the cheapest place in the western hemisphere for wages).

(You don't live in a capitalist society if capital can move freely and people
can't. That's international serfdom.)

So what happened when Fanmi Lavalas started making Haitians uppity?

You hit them with a stick. And of course you hit the serfs who are the most
vulnerable, it's cheaper that way and serves as an example to others.

------
Datsundere
The UN usually gives money to Nepal and gives the responsibility to provide
soldier to haiti. It's the responsibility of the Nepal's government to screen
everyone and educate them about these kinds of things.

As you may or may not know, Nepal's government is one of the most corrupt
piece of shit in the world. The higher ups probably took most of the money and
spent hardly any on the soldiers being sent there.

------
adestefan
Why is this on HN?

~~~
DanBC
What do you think should be on HN?

~~~
cac04
News about hacking

~~~
alan_cx
Should Fox News only have news about foxes? Although...

~~~
gaius
Here's some news about badgers: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-
england-24459424](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24459424)

