You will likely need to bend your head both from the eggs/tomatoes as well as flower boquets sent your way - Geneva being home to many involved with the UN.

I often see criticism in the Canadian press (from readers' comments esp.) about the uselessness of the UN but these people I'm sure are only thinking of the General Assembly votes and criticisms of western nations by the developing world as well as groups like BRIC and Mercosur.  The UN is more than that obviously with UNICEF, UNHCR etc.  However large organisations whether commercially oriented or governmental tend often to sclerotic bureaucratic inefficiencies and being populated by human beings are susceptible to poseurs, corruption but also well intentioned and effective individuals.

In the world of 'Realpolitik' i.e. one hyperpower, the UN will reflect in a large degree the interests of the western world and not necessarily that of the majority. Still if (a big IF) we have true representative democracy in our countries and an informed public perhaps there might be good pressure to steer the UN to truly carry out its mandate and implement the various resolutions adapted over all these years.

I think it's a great question. But, what you want your answer predicated on?

1. Pure public opinion. OR.....

2. Tangible and measurable results, of past and present programs.

Hit me with both. I mean, in the aricle I am kind of starting from the point of view of public opinion. It's even in the title: Is the UN good for nothing? Ask Ashton and Demi http://bit.ly/g7Y8ry Hardly an academic title, right! As if Ashton and Demi can pronounce on international organizations efficiency or mandates! That's the pop hook if you wish.

But to me what matters is your point 2 and this is really where I want to go with this article in order to discuss exactly what type of trafficking organizations should receive money from the Fund, so that you can really say the Fund is making a difference.

Your point 2 of measureable results is also something, which won't necessarily fit with popular rhetoric. As Marxist says there are a few kind of pop arguments: the GA doesn't work, developing countries are ignored, and to that let's add - the UN can never intervene, the UN is not strong militarily, the UN is as strong as the will of its members states, etc.

I think in the end it is not so hard to prove results in some form. It's a question of having the information and also not being too 'pop' in frowing at anything that might originate from the UN.

We're all different. I personally could give a flying $hit what Ashton or Demi, or most other movie and pop stars have to say about the UN. Well, come to think of it, what they say about most things.

I do however, believe that measureable results is the only clear way to answer your question.

I agree with not giving a flying (appropos coming from an aviator!) sh.. about what the likes of Ashton and his better (IN MY OPINION) half (aka Demi) have to say about or on behalf of the UN.  I can never believe that people are moved to some sort of action or awareness by stars lending their aura to a campaign.  And yet I've spent my career as a medically trained doctor working in pharmaceutical marketing and have seen how 'celebrity' endorsement (high profile doctors for the most part but also politicos) can influence doctor prescribing choices.  So though I'm more inclined to be influenced by 'intellectuals' I must confess that celebrities might have a role in generating awareness.  Where that leads is the question and your point about measureable results is to the point.  However what do we mean by 'measureable' - what and how do we measure?  It would be good to hear from some UN personnel or NGO types on some concrete positive enduring results of UN programs, to get this Forum moving and the question debated.

Since there is no alternative to such an organization as UN we have nothing to do. Of course it is needed and it`s concept is  not bad at all.

I am almost of the same opinion (though woefully uninformed about all the programs and departments of the UN). However, and granted my ignorance, I ask myself if the UN is not like a bandaid on a gaping wound i.e. of little or no consequence.  I cannot believe it is of no use but perhaps a better question to ask and answer is is it 'efficient' i.e. are the budgets and programs in some measureable way effective and cost-effective.  Concrete examples or some type of partial or overall evaluation over a defined period of time would go a long way to reassuring many people of the utitllity of the UN and to support funding if indeed it is merited.

An example of what the UN does is MINUSTAH in Haiti:

"On June 8, 2005, U.S. Ambassador to Brazil John Danilovich and his political counsellor met with then President Lula da Silva’s international affairs adviser Marco Aurelio Garcia.  The revelvant leaked cable reads: “Ambassador and PolCouns … stressed continued US G[overnment] insistence that all efforts must be made to keep Aristide from returning to Haiti or influencing the political process .. [and that Washington was] increasingly concerned about a major deterioration in security, especially in Port-au-Prince.”

Garcia duly assured the superpower’s representatives of “continued Brazilian resolve to keep Aristide from returning to the country or exerting political influence.”  Further, Garcia noted that Aristide “does not fit in with a democratic poitical future in Haiti.”  Given that Aristide was twice elected by overwhelming majorities in the most open, nonviolent elections in Haiti’s history, the definition of “democratic” here must be uniquely Washingtonian.

An October 2008 cable from then U.S. Ambassador to Haiti Janet Sanderson is a choice example of the patronizing doublespeak that students of U.S. foreign policy either tune out or relish.  Arguing fiercely for the continuation of the UN “peacekeeping” operation known by its acronym MINUSTAH, set up to take over from U.S., French and Canadian troops, to legitimize the 2004 coup, Sanderson asserts “MINUSTAH is a remarkable product and symbol of hemispheric cooperation in a country with little going for it.”

Wikileaks and Haiti, By BEN TERRALL http://counterpunch.org/terrall03012011.html

In short, yes.

<<<an example of what the UN does is MINUSTAH in Haiti:>>>

Is this a fair example? They went in and took over from their predecessors with the original intention of only being there for 6 months (in 2004). Since then the place has been devastated by hurricanes and last year's earthquake. Given those variables, I don't know how we can measure their success (or failure) because their orignal mission goal has been compromised by external factors. Or can we?

The UN has a lot to do in order to be more efficient. However, it has delivered a lot of successful efforts in many countries in terms of development. They can be and SHOULD be better but to say that the UN is good for nothing is rather ignorant. There have been many programs that worked well and had measurable results. The problem is that they don't do PR. And if they do, they are not good at it.

I can give you an example of a port training program at UNCTAD which I was involved with. In Cameroon, after successfully delivered the training, the port there reduced the cost by 30% in the first year and 40% in the next year, making them become much more efficient (having unefficient ports will push a country further away from the market by about 40%). There are about 16 staff in this section and they work very hard in 40 countries (out of which 17 are LDCs) in 3 different programs. I don't think you can call that 'good for nothing'.

a headline from the bbc today:

The UN General Assembly has voted unanimously to suspend Libya from the UN Human Rights Council. A resolution accused it of committing gross and systematic violations.

The word 'slow' has been mentioned above to describe the UN, but this has only just been passed today. Now when was it that gaddafi came to power again?... 

The UN is good for.....errr ..... gimme a second.... it'll come to me....

Oh yeah.... employing pretty female interns in Gve...thanks for that.

Yep - fair enough. Maybe I missed something, but I'm not sure why they were ever a part of that council? Especially given the most recent reports that Gaddafi ordered the bombing of Pan AM 103, himself... 

Exactly!  I've been thinking the same as the sudden realisations of various western powers surfaced concerning the undesirability and undemocratic nature of long established (and western supported) MENA dictatorships became 'news' (to some, and long understood by many esp. the populations) and difficult to ignore.  The Canadian government has always waited for pronouncements from the US before making known 'its' (identical) stand vis a vis Mubarak and Ghaddaffi.  Ban Ki Moon waited until he could get his marching orders and understand what the US intended before as chief of the UN he spoke and took action (something to do with being South Korean perhaps?!).

Is there anything the UN does (not says) that couldn't be done by individual countries or countries in concert? Cuba didn't wait for international opinion before sending medical aid to victims of Turkey's earthquake, nor to Pakistan and more recently to Haiti. Venezuela provided cheaper heating fuel to parts of the US a few years back.  Large organisations tend to bureaucracy as I have seen in the multinational pharma industry where people try to justify there existence with worthless projects etc., while in lean pharma organisations I saw less as well as quick and decisive actions.

The UN probably needs reform and cutting down to size but to whom will we entrust that reponsibility? The UN itself? Or do we need popular revolts a la Tunisia. Egypt etc. to get what we want and need?

I agree it might not be a fair example or perhaps better said, a representative example but it is an example of how politicised UN actions can be and how they can be anything other than humanitarian.

That the UN might have stated an initial 6 month period is irrelevant - organisations (private companies, NGOs, neighborhood self-help groups etc.) and politicians often make such pronouncements about timeframes with no idea what the real timeframe is likely to be or as a cover for an intended timeframe of however long it takes to achieve the real goal as opposed to the stated goal (think Iraqui freedom and nation building/female liberation in Afghanistan and countless other humanitarian actions like liberating Grenada, the nutmag capital of the world so it wouldn't threaten its neighbors and the US with coups and weapons of mass nutmeg destruction).

Read the article to get a sense of what the real goal is i.e. what Brazilian and US diplomats were saying and communicating in diplomatic cables about the MINUSTAH role in Haiti and the actions of the poliicing unit to support local corrupt Haitian police forces post Aristide (democratically elected) coup and then you realise how unrealistic (disingenuous) the original projection was. Earthquakes and hurricanes did not change the behaviour of MINUSTAH and their bad behaviour predated these natural disasters.

So, yes this is a 'fair' i.e. real example (criticism) of the politicised work the UN does in some circumstances.

Look at the "predecessors": US, Canada and France.  We know much about US interventions in Haiti in the past hundred+ years and Canada's fawning foreign policy dictated by the US and the axe to grind of France.

Regarding the predecessors: 

"In Port Au Prince, U.S. Marines appear set to remind their partners, French gendarmes and Canadian Special Forces, how to turn an officially humanitarian mission into a convenient foreign-sponsored caravan of death in less than five days. An unspecified number of U.S. soldiers--probably not exceeding 300 at the moment--are reportedly working side by side with anti-Aristide Haitian rebels, including shady former coup-maker Guy Philippe, to secure what news organizations are now calling a "tenuous calm" in Port Au Prince but what Haitians in the capital city and sharper-eyed reporters stigmatize as open chaos. Philippe, after earlier saying for a time that the rebels would lay down arms as soon as Aristide left, has now conveniently forgotten that edict and declared himself new chief of the military. U.S. military leaders dispatched to the island are quickly scrambling to narrow their mandate from any pretenses to be establishing "democracy". Col. David Berger, the Marine Corps commander in charge, said this morning to the New York Times that his troops will not act as police officers. "I have no instructions to disarm the rebels," says the colonel".

And then Brazil with a desire to get a seat on the Security Council took over!

Well, there's that really big building in town, with some really expensive crappy artwork in front of it, so that must be good for something, right? As for measurable results: 'Millennium Goals', anyone? Sorry I don't have any better news...

<<<Earthquakes and hurricanes did not change the behaviour of MINUSTAH and their bad behaviour predated these natural disasters.>>>

An interesting observation. I honestly haven't followed it as closely as you have. But, I'd still like to know what led you to that conclusion. Not being argumentative at all.....

KEN///

Yes quite amusing Lybia should be part of a Human Rights Council but the same could be said of Britain with its post colonial history of atrocities in Malaya, Kenya and elsewhere. US bringing Iraqui freedom to approximately 1 million dead Iraqis and 4 million displaced ones. "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose"'

Why Lybia? Gas and oil perhaps?! BP perhaps? And Ghadaffi to some degree started to 'behave'?

As to Lockerbie, the role of Lybia is disputed or doubted by many observers including family of the victims. Iran might possibly have been involved:

"The Iranians had a clear motive for an attack on an American airliner, following the destruction of an Iranian Airbus over the Persian Gulf carrying 290 passengers, including 66 children, on July 3, 1988. The U.S. Navy missile carrier Vincennes had casually blown it out of the sky despite clear indications it was a civilian plane". The Frame-Up, By ALEXANDER COCKBURN http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07232010.html

Yeah, concepts nice.

@ Charlie: The interns are really lucky with a guy like you willing to babysit them.

I think we got vectored a little.... So, your opinion on the UN based upon their actions in Haiti is that they are no good?

What do folks think about celebrities and UN campaigns? Good awareness raising or fony PR?

For example this one. Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore helping anti-trafficking campaign. But it's not all fluff: http://bit.ly/g7Y8ry Many people for example might not even pay attention to the issue if they were not there.

Marxist  we know you don't give a &&&& what Demi and Shton think! What do others think?

I think Marksist and I share the same opinion.

KEN///

damn it ! if i dont get it., it means i am not pretty ! my life will be ruined!!!

I was thinking about that to and came to the concluson that even UN simply doesnt have competitors and is a monopolist in such a vast secotr. Thereofore we ask questions on efficency, Sounds crazy I know but it would be great if they get competitors.

Elisaveta, hi is Iveta. lol

I think there is a lot of competition out there as the sector grows.

UN World health org competes with intl Bill Gates funded public private partnerships like GAVI for example. UN furious.

On partnerships with the finance sector UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative where I used to work competes with at least 20 networks like this!!! Really such a crowded space.

Within the system itself there is a lot of competition - UN Global Compact, UNEP FI, UN PRI, and there are aslo those who are kind of on the perephery while not UN bodies officially - i.e. World Business Council.

Add to that the World Bank (similar to UNDP mandate), World Economic Forum - public private partnership of no-one-exactly-knows which kind, and it's a jar with pickles!

Which reminds me I am kinda hungry ..

Hi Iveta,

yes a very useful information by the way. I can perfor examples of organizations that can POTENTIALLY compete with UNESCO as I work i that sector. However, I have doubts if official documents therefore actions of all these organizations have simillar juridical staus as what UN have. I think their monopoly is exactly there. 

True about the documents.

Also you see in in communications and media. Any other organization would dream about the way journalists eat from your hand when you have news. Anyone else has to persist and struggle to get their attention. Once they know you just send them the stuff and it's up there on Reuters in a second.

I agree in that way also there is no competition.

Oh here I understand you so well.

Somebody just slipped under my door a classified document that shows how UN take decisions. Here it is, exposed for the first time ever.

(B.U.L.S.H.I.T. sands for BUreau-wide Leading Special High-level Integrated Task force)

Not at all. Just giving one example of what the UN is capable of doing. As I said in an earlier mail, the UN is more than just the General Assembly e.g. UNICEF and UNHCR and I would like to believe they have effected some significant, good and enduring change in the world.  However we need to look at the big picture - the good and the bad - and perhaps not throw out the baby with the bathwater.  As for the conclusion drawn on the behaviour of MINUSTAH pre-earthquake and hurricane, there was no conclusion just a claim supported by a list of articles on the UN forces in Haiti pre-dating these events.  Everyone can judge for themselves and I am drawing no conclusions on whether the UN is good for nothing. Here's the list: http://www.google.com/search?q=MINUSTAH&btnG=Google+Search&domains=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.counterpunch.org&sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.counterpunch.org

This is crazy and it's exactly like that!! Now imagine you work in the media sections and you have to suit everybody and present a coherent statement to media - it becomes crazy! And what if you added a separate box if the UN agency is also a public private partnership where you add the private sector chairs, and thematic and regional sub-groups.

Spa please ...