13 ms·
I Love the U.N., but It Is Failing
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- akhatri_aus 11y agoThe 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 11y agoThe 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 11y ago>> "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 11y agoBureaucracy 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.
- joshuaheard 11y agoThe human species has a long way to go.
- UhUhUhUh 11y agoReading the UN declaration of 1948 helps to put things in perspective. It hangs on my wall.
- igravious 11y agoI 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/
- roymurdock 11y agoRelated 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-un-intern/ https://desertqueensarah.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/dont-be-a-...
- gohrt 11y agoThe silly part of that analysis is that they think someone who gets a UN intern job has any interest in ever applying for a job they can't get through powerful friends and family.
- pdabbadabba 11y agoThis is just knee-jerk, spiteful cynicism. I know a number of people who dream of working for the U.N. and getting the job through connections certainly doesn't factor into it. Quite the contrary: landing a U.N. job (at least in the U.S.) is extremely difficult, and certainly far more difficult than other job opportunities available to these sorts of people. They're driven to the U.N. out of idealism, not laziness.
- jacquesm 11y agoIf 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.
- gavman 11y agoThe 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/peacekeepers/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/world/2016/02/27/peacekeepe...). "Child sexual abuse by UN peacekeepers" even has its own wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse_by_UN_peacekeepers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse_by_UN_peace...) Bribes are abound, even a story earlier today (http://www.seattletimes.com/business/humanitarian-worker-charged-in-united-nations-bribery-scheme/ http://www.seattletimes.com/business/humanitarian-worker-cha..., http://nypost.com/2015/10/06/former-general-assembly-president-charged-in-un-corruption-scandal/ http://nypost.com/2015/10/06/former-general-assembly-preside...). Saudi Arabia is on the human rights council (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/22/why-is-saudi-arabia-heading-the-u-n-human-rights-council.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/22/why-is-saud...). Not exactly a "scandal" but in the same vein. It's ever-increasingly hard to take the organization seriously.
- vixen99 11y agoIts ability. It's is a contraction for it is or it has.
- habitue 11y agoI 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?"
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- stcredzero 11y agoI 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.
- CWuestefeld 11y agoAIUI, 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 11y agoIt 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.pdf http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng...
- whatyoucantsay 11y agoThe 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.
- macspoofing 11y ago>Because China has a veto. Veto power is one of the big design successes of the UN. It guarantees major global powers, the ones you actually want to participate, actually participate and not ignore, or worse, pull-out and delegitimize the UN.
- gozur88 11y agoTrue. These are the countries that would have a de facto veto in any event due to military or economic power. Mostly military.
- hourglass74 11y agoBut the People's Republic of China is already a member, so surely the membership of Chinese Taipei would be somewhat redundant? It's not like each and every U.S. state have their own separate U.N. memberships.
- gyardley 11y agoI'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 11y agoGet a view into the workings of the United States government at some point and let us know which is better or worse
- shaftoe 11y agoWith April 15 coming, it wouldn't be hard to convince me that there's no reason to fund THAT broken organization either.
- thisislame 11y agoThis 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 11y agoAlternately, 18F
- hackuser 11y agoTo 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 11y agoI 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 11y agoAlthough 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".
- hunvreus 11y agoThe 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
- cies 11y agoUnrelated 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 11y agoSo 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 11y agoI 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.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- rwmj 11y agoInteresting 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-irrelevance-in-the-war-on-drugs http://politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/03/15/the-un-fades-into-irr...
- bbanyc 11y agoThat 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?
- 13thLetter 11y agoYou 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 11y agoRubbish. 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/
- douche 11y agoThe Israeli-Palestinian problem is largely caused by the UN's toothlessness in the first place - and beyond that, like most of the shitshows that have plagued the world for the last fifty-odd years, the British and French abdicating responsibility for their colonies after World War 2.
- mudil 11y agoAll in all, nowadays in the world there are more than 90 well recognized territorial disputes, from Tibet to Kaliningrad. UN fixation on Israel is just another symptom of the rotten nature of UN, a mix of antisemitism and autocratic governments and UN bureaucrats.
- 13thLetter 11y agoHave you ever heard of a place called Tibet? It's pretty interesting. You can look it up on Wikipedia.
- yuvalr1 11y agoYou 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.
- abpavel 11y ago6-member permanent security council members with veto ensures that nothing related to their interests is passed. It also shows who governs U.N.
- ende 11y agoThe UN is probably better described as "The WW2 Winning Team + associates". Please adjust expectations from here on out accordingly.
- dellsystem 11y agoKenneth 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.
- julie1 11y agoFunny. The ancester of UN (LN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations#General_weaknesses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations#General_weak...) 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 11y agoAre 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?
- matthewmcg 11y agoDo 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 11y agoI'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.
- anonbanker 11y agoThis 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-action-on-drugs http://idpc.net/events/2016/02/ipu-un-parliamentary-event-ac... 1. http://idpc.net/policy-advocacy/the-un-general-assembly-special-session-on-drugs-ungass-2016 http://idpc.net/policy-advocacy/the-un-general-assembly-spec...
- orkida 11y agowhat would you do if you were that assistant secretary to fix the un? please i need an answer
- orkida 11y agowhat would you do if you were that assistsnt secretary to fix the un? please i need an answer
- CristianMazzei 11y agoI 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.