United Nations Double Standard
March 15, 2005
Posted by John Tant at March 15, 2005 07:31 AM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/761
Travel with me if you will to an alternate, John Titor-type universe.
It's 2005. The United States has troops in Iraq as a peacekeeping measure while the Iraqi interim government gets their country put together. A story comes out about what the Pentagon calls "sexual misconduct." Namely, US troops have been going to clubs in Iraq which are frequented by young girls, some barely 12 years old, and engaging in sex acts with them. In return, the troops give the girls ten bucks or some food.
Further developments show this is probably the least objectionable action taken by US troops. In other areas, troops were actively looking for teen and pre-teen girls and sexually abusing them. When reached for comment, a Pentagon spokesman said simply "Boys will be boys." This on the heels of further revelations of US troops operating brothels and used US equipment to traffic women from other countries.
That would be pretty damned outrageous, wouldn't it? You think Tailhook was a scandal...the press would never let go of this story and I'd wager we'd get a Presidential resignation (if not impeachment) out of it.
Why then, oh why, the virtual silence on this exact story when the cast of characters is not the US military or the Iraqi people, but the United Nations, their "peacekeepers," and the residents of such countries as Liberia, Haiti, Burundi, and other countries? Frankly, I'm amazed the Washington Post covered it at all, although I do note it's on page A22 of the Sunday paper, so I wouldn't exactly call it vigorous coverage.
But look at the euphemisms used by the story. A "culture of sexual permissiveness?" Give me a break. This isn't sexual permissiveness...this is rape. And it isn't like we're looking at any serious incentive for these people to stop with their "permissiveness" either. From the story:
But senior U.N. officials say they have signaled their seriousness by imposing new reforms and forcing senior U.N. military commanders and officials to step down if they do not curb such practices.
Um....step down. That's it?!? Trafficking in 12 year old girls and forcing them to perform sex acts for your command is merely worthy of a resignation? And not even a resignation from the military, but merely as a UN commander or an official? And that's only if they get caught, ridiculous when the people responsible for catching them say things like, as Yasushi Akashi (top UN official in Cambodia) said of similar "permissiveness" in Cambodia: "Boys will be boys."
The UN had (note past tense) some serious potential as a force for good in the world, potential which was squandered. The faster we disassociate ourselves from this worthless organization until they get their act together, the better. In fact, I think we should create a better, faster UN and call it The Justice League of America. I know what their first mission would be.
Posted by John Tant at March 15, 2005 07:31 AM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/761
| Trackback Entries | |
| The Jawa Report linked with Jawa Report Celebrates One Million Visitors | |
| The Jawa Report linked with Jawa Report Celebrates One Million Visitors | |
| The Jawa Report linked with Jawa Report Celebrates One Million Visitors | |
| The Jawa Report linked with Jawa Report Celebrates One Million Visitors | |
| The Jawa Report linked with Jawa Report Celebrates One Million Visitors | |
| The Jawa Report linked with Jawa Report Celebrates One Million Visitors | |
| The Jawa Report linked with Jawa Report Celebrates One Million Visitors | |
Comments
| # March 15th, 2005 9:08 AM james |
| wow, john titor. i wonder if anyone else is going to get that.
i usually fall asleep listening to coast to coast. |
| # March 15th, 2005 9:09 AM kris |
| john titor is the alleged time traveler, right? |
| # March 15th, 2005 9:10 AM james |
| now that i think about it, i think that i read about senor titor before hearing about it there, though.... |
| # March 15th, 2005 9:11 AM james |
| yup. and in his world, 2035 or so, federalism is REAL big. and we have 5 presidents. |
| # March 15th, 2005 9:11 AM kris |
| he kind of scares me. and reminds me that i should get my bike tires pumped up. |
| # March 15th, 2005 9:15 AM james |
| perhaps you should buy a foot pump to be ready for the coming apocalypse |
| # March 15th, 2005 9:22 AM kris |
| ooooh, that's what i'll do if i win our NCAA pool! |
| # March 15th, 2005 10:15 AM jonts |
| lol
I had to laugh about this breathless piece. "Um....step down. That's it?!? " Of course- the foot soldiers who commit the crime are of course prosecuted; their senior commanders should step down (they cannot be prosecuted if their subordinate commits a crime unbeknownst to them). Or, by all means, as you wish- lets begin prosecuting commanders for the crimes committed by their troops- perhaps we should start with the commander in chief of those US troopers in abu grade... Now, lets see you rant and rave about that case ;-) Oh, and you are shocked that there is "culture of sexual permissiveness" among young army soldiers in a conflict situation? Wow, imagine that, i am sure thats a first ;) |
| # March 15th, 2005 10:56 AM JohnTant |
| Jonts, I'd like to congratulate you for being the guy to bring up Abu Ghraib within three hours of the posting. Somehow I thought it would be longer. But more on that in a minute.
First, on the point of the superiors. If you've ever served in the military (have you?), you'd know that no matter what, the commanding officer is responsible for the men and women under his command. For all that, it's a little irresponsible to suggest the UN commanders don't know what's going on. In fact, from the story: The letter also stated that community leaders in the town of Robertsport have accused Namibian peacekeepers there of "using administrative building premises and the surrounding bush to undertake sex acts with girls between the age of 12-17." How does a crew use "administrative buildings" under the nose of the local commanding muckety-muck? For that matter, if we're to believe the UN...which has, according to the story, taken a "series of measures" to combat this, you have to think at least a memo went out to the various unit commanders saying something like "Keep an eye on the soldiers under your command, because they can't keep things zipped up." If not, what "measures" were taken that involve the ignorance of those in command of the "peacekeepers?" Anyway, you'll note there were numerous prosecutions of the soldiers charged with crimes at Abu Ghraib, and they were under investigation even before the news media caught wind of it. You'll also note the Pentagon robustly condemned the actions of those soldiers and took positive action against it. And there is accountability...if you don't think the Administration did enough about it, you can vote the bastards out. Let's contrast that with the UN, which has had these stories following them since at least the early 90s, and they are still going on. We have a UN leadership content to sweep it under the rug, and if denied that are consigned to do the absolute minimum to deal with the problem. Where, for instance, were the troops prosecuted? The story I linked details a few accused who, after a UN investigation, got off. Is that the rule? It would be nice if we knew, but the famed UN obstructionism makes investigation of that difficult. For certain, there is no accountability of the guys in charge of all this. But even with that, even with the differences...how to reconcile the breathless outrage folks like yourself had when Abu Ghraib photos were made public with their virtual silence over an issue many many more years in the making? Honestly, if you want to "rant and rave" about Abu Ghraib, there's much more meat in the UN story...and yet I don't see much outrage from you on that point, Jonts. In fact, you say much the same thing Akashi said in trying to explain it away. First you minimize it, using the same euphemism as the story's protagonist (and sorry, bud, but the rape of a 12 year old girl is not akin to sexual permissiveness, despite how you obviously want to define the term). Second, you try to mischaracterize what I said...I never expressed "shock" that young soldiers in a conflict situation were sexually permissive...what I said was that term was being misused to describe rape. In case you missed it, I wrote: This isn't sexual permissiveness...this is rape. And if you think young soldiers are predisposed to rape, so much so that shock at the very suggestion is ridiculed, then I have a few guys I'd like you to meet...guys who don't take being called rapists very lightly. So tell you what...since you're apparently upset about Abu Ghraib and feel this to be analogous, go ahead and insulate yourself from hypocrisy charges and decry the UN's failure to address this issue. |
| # March 16th, 2005 6:55 AM jonts |
| "to combat this, you have to think at least a memo went out to the various unit commanders saying something like "Keep an eye on the soldiers under your command,""
Well, lets ask the US military unit commanders at Abu Graib? "How does a crew use "administrative buildings" under the nose of the local commanding muckety-muck?" Again, lets ask those US troops in Abu graib, they were pretty good at it (they were billeted and based in the prison premisis) The UN has taken action : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4262743.stm But, again why let facts get in the way of a good rant? Still, if researching sexual misconduct by troops is your thing, go to google.com type in "US troops + rape". Enjoy.. |
| # March 16th, 2005 7:00 AM jonts |
| "For certain, there is no accountability of the guys in charge of all this."
I KNOW!, we are expected to beleive that some sargeant in abu graib was the most senior person to know of what was going on there?! As you say, no accountability. |
| # March 16th, 2005 9:01 AM JohnTant |
| Well, Jonts...all I have to say is I'm not the guy trying to draw moral equivalency between making a terrorist walk the quad with panties on his head and the rape of a 12 year old girl. That you're obsessed with trying to fit the square peg of Abu Ghraib into the round hold of UN-accommodated rape and sexual slave rings says quite a bit. It says you can't address the UN story on the merits. I'm still surprised that you can't seem to criticize the UN for letting their misconduct go on for at least 15 years with no end in sight. But then, I'm not the guy using hypocrisy as an attempt for a QED.
Incidentally, considering the point of my post was that a troop abuse story was getting short shrift by the media when a comparable story involving US troops would be leading the news from now until Doomsday, having you toddle in here and mention Abu Ghraib with Renfield-like regularity does quite a bit to bolster my point. Thanks! Oh, and thanks for the link. It actually provides additional support for my case. Undoubtedly you, in your intellectually honest fashion, noticed from the story that it wasn't the UN who arrested the soldiers in question, but the Moroccan government. And from the story, it explicitly confirms that the UN can't (or more properly, won't) discipline soldiers serving as peacekeepers. So I guess you could say the UN is "taking action" using the story as support...since the report says: Last month a team investigated 72 allegations of abuse by UN peacekeepers and civilian staff. Twenty-six of these, involving soldiers from Pakistan, Nepal, Tunisia, South Africa and Uruguay, were substantiated. Of course, the real rub is what the UN did after the reports were substantiated, isn't it? Curious omission from the story, the resolutions of those 26 cases. Not like we'd know, given the close mouthed tendency of the UN. But we have an idea based on a tidbit further down in the story...a shift of blame in the story from the UN to the countries in question: And it is only when countries like Morocco prosecute offenders, [UN Officials] say, that sexual abuse by peacekeepers can be stamped out. It would be interesting to see how many soldiers accused of rape the UN has sent back to their home countries with requests for that country to take action. Something tells me we'd be underwhelmed. Curious factual omissions from someone who accuses me of withholding facts in favor of a rant. Real action would be refusal to accept soldiers from countries which refuse to prosecute soldiers on these charges. But then, that doesn't appear to be on the table now, does it? Finally, thanks for admitting you believe US soldiers are predisposed to rape. I guess this is the part where you jump the shark? |
| # March 16th, 2005 9:28 AM jonts |
| johntant
My point was that the underlying problems you raised about the UN troops apply to US military too: i.e.: "to combat this, you have to think at least a memo went out to the various unit commanders saying something like "Keep an eye on the soldiers under your command,"" e.g. abu graib, congo "How does a crew use "administrative buildings" under the nose of the local commanding muckety-muck?" e.g. abu graib, congo |
| # March 16th, 2005 10:49 AM JohnTant |
| If you believe the "problems" are analogous, why the outraged coverage of Abu Ghraib and the virtual silence on the UN rape issue (not to mention the UN's undeniable stonewalling and coverup) which has been going on much longer?
Hence my point...it's funny how the US gets held to outraged account over those "problems," (which, I think I've made clear, pale in comparison to what the UN is doing) and the UN doesn't. In fact, the WaPo story is softpedaling the entire thing, couching it in a euphemism. |
| # March 16th, 2005 12:40 PM mbrlr |
| Well, the main reason for the difference in coverage is that the guys committing child abuse and what is technically, according to our law, rape in Iraq are our troops. While the actions of UN forces are heinous and should be addressed, those actions aren't quite as "front page" as the actions of our troops and THEY DO NOT CONSTITUTE ANY JUSTIFICATION for those actions or the lack of action on the part of the Pentagon or the Administration. C'mon. |
| # March 16th, 2005 1:08 PM mbrlr |
| BTW, I notice from the main page that you appear to be from Virginia, John. If you prefer not to answer, I understand, but I was just curious if you're from anywhere near Charlottesville? I deal with a lot of folks there at Lexis-Nexis and they're always raving about how beautiful it is, but I've never managed to make it up there. |
| # March 16th, 2005 1:14 PM james |
| there isnt a single US jurisdiction that calls making someone walk around with their underwear on their head "rape," mbrlr. to say as much is to cheapen the definition of "rape" and take a lot away from people who have actually been victiminzed.
What's next, are you going to say that hitting an iraqi prisoner with a stick is "techinically murder?" ridiculous. |
| # March 16th, 2005 2:35 PM JohnTant |
| mbrlr, let me see if I understand your post correctly. You're saying the MSM is ignoring the atrocities committed by UN troops because they aren't American troops? I think that's actually a given. The real question is why are US troops held to a different standard? Does the media really have lower expectations of non-Americans and gives them a pass on that basis? Isn't that offensive at some level, particularly to a non-American? To me it's like saying we should have lower college entrance scores for blacks because they just can't be expected to perform as well as others.
Incidentally, I think rape of a twelve-year old goes beyond simple "child abuse," and I hope most people do as well. Finally, I'm not offering up UN atrocities to mitigate any US atrocities, even hypothetical or overblown ones. What I am pointing out is the US was/is the target of derision because of coverage of Abu Ghraib. If the coverage is based on the nationality of who is committing the atrocity and not the actual action, doesn't that say something about the credibility of the coverage? Also, I've been to Charlottesville...very nice area, but don't drive too fast. :) |
| # March 16th, 2005 4:04 PM mbrlr |
| My reference to rape and coverage was because I thought you had mentioned it in regard to the reports of the future. My apologies if you hadn't, and I'll reread material before I post in days to come. However, there have been reports of rape, but I'm not sure if any of them have been substantiated or if any troops have been held for court-martial.
And yes, I do believe UN and foreign troops should be held to different standards. Objectively, this makes no sense, I'll grant you, but those US troops are our troops and we have a history and a reputation to uphold that is central to who and what we are. Further, we have an obligation to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan to fulfill that we are not fulfilling if are troops engage in this sort of behavior and then the higher ranks and the administration sweep it under the rug. Also, in the end, the American people are responsible for those troops and their behavior and their actions. As for press coverage, the simple reality is that the charges in either the UN/foreign troops situation or the American troops situation are equally heinous, but we're obviously going to pay more attention to it in both the press and the public because it relates to our troops. If US personnel in the UN forces had allegedly committed the offences, it would be front page news. That's the way it would be in any country. Is it right? Perhaps not, but that's just the nature of the beast --- what shows up in the press is generally what relates to the public that reads or watches the product. Oh, and nice shot bringing in affirmative action into the argument. Work for Legal Services in the Delta for a bit and see if you think the rather short period since Johnson pushed through the Civil Rights Act has really managed to overcome all the problems faced by blacks in this society. Why are so many of our soldiers minorities? It's one of the few relatively color-blind areas of our society, thanks to Harry Truman. Do you like Colin Powell? His position on affirmative action is unabashedly positive. Enough on that for the moment. I don't think the coverage of Abu Ghraib was based on the fact that Americans were responsible, although for American citizens that should have held sufficient horror in and of itself, but on the story. What happened was what happened and that was what was reported, just as it has been clearly reported that we've shipped folks out of the US and other countries that have decent legal process to other countries lacking in that so that we can question them without regard to due process, even the relatively minor sort we have to give them at Guantanamo. What is truly sad about current press coverage is that story has not been focused on to the extent it should have been, nor has the "male model planted in the White House press corp" really been examined sufficiently. We currently have an amazingly tame press in the United States. Look, just please understand that many Americans sincerely believe that our actions in this war have betrayed the very things that make this country different and special, the things the Founders based us upon. Absolute power can corrupt absolutely, and I greatly fear that's where we're headed both internally and externally. Our problem wasn't with the war in Afghanistan, although we didn't like the way it didn't end without the quite likely and feasible capture of bin Laden, but with the war in Iraq and all the falsehoods and all the things that have fallen in place at home and abroad due to that war. Abu Ghraib is a primary example; that American troops could have been placed in that position by officers where that sort of thing could take place is just...my God. And I'd love to see Charlottesville. One of our staff did make it there a few years ago to see one of the Lexis lawyers we've worked with for years and just to see what it looked like. She came away wanting to move there. I've envied her ever since. |
| # March 16th, 2005 4:23 PM mbrlr |
| I've just done a bit of searching and there have been allegations of rape against US soldiers, including some substantiated by photographs (don't go looking for those, please) and the allegations at Abu Ghraib went beyond underwear on the head --- one charge was rape, I believe, and one charge was sodomy with a baton, I believe. I'll look up the official list somewhere. And please note that Abu Ghraib is not the only allegation of abuse that's been made against US troops. Anyone calling for GW's resignation or impeachment yet? I should add that I wish him four more years. Not successful years, but four more years --- the prospect of President Cheney would turn my hair white much faster than it would turn naturally. |
| # March 16th, 2005 7:19 PM JohnTant |
| mbrlr, I'll take things in turn. The way I see it, you're hitting three broad themes.
-The rape issue. If you want to allege Abu Ghraib guards systematically raped inmates there, go ahead. By your count there is one charge of rape and one of the baton thing. The UN investigation last month had 72 allegations, with 26 substantiated. But I'm feeling generous. Let's take your entire point on Abu Ghraib at face value. Even if all of it was true, even if you want to make it morally equivalent to running human trafficking rings and rapists enjoying a 15 year smorgasboord, it still doesn't account for the disparity of coverage. The way I see it, and I see shades of this in your comment, Abu Ghraib is held up because it's useful as a cudgel with which to attack the Bush Administration concerning the Iraq war, by those who are against the war anyway. But as for the sincerity of the outrage...color me unpersuaded, as long as the UN continues covering up a 15 year history of raping kids and those who voiced breathless outrage over Abu Ghraib continue to remain silent on a far more insidious issue. I guess you've conceded that part when you say it's the nature of the beast. Being honest about anti-American bias is the first step to recovery. -The accountability issue. This wasn't reported much, but the plain fact is the soldiers in question at Abu Ghraib were already facing disciplinary actions by the time the media caught wind of the story. In other words, the Pentagon was moving to correct the situation on its own with no external prompting. That's a pretty powerful statement as to how we view our "obligation" to Iraqis and Afghans. -The coverage issue. Your main theme seems to be the media covered Abu Ghraib more because its a) a domestic media and b) a story concerning Americans. OK, then extending that rationale, world news agencies shouldn't have been paying much attention to the story. Care to continue with this theme, or shall we duel by Google and see how many stories non-US newsies did on Abu Ghraib vs. the UN? The other parts, particularly the Jeff Gannon non-story (there's another molehill of a story....) but also the entire dissertation on corruption, are just filler. You want to see absolute power corrupting absolutely and not have it sound like a Chimpy McBushburton rant? Here, I'd like you to meet Kofi Annan. Incidentally, the modern day arguments behind affirmative action are nearly identical to the arguments that a foreign soldier can rape with little or nothing said about it. It's the attitude that the favored party isn't capable of high (read: uniform) standards. News to me a black person isn't capable of, say, reading as well as a white kid. Another topic for another post. But interesting comment about the tame press. I'd suggest you check out the questions Bush routinely receives during his press conferences, and compare them to what the same reporters asked Clinton. You think they're tame NOW....six years ago they were positively lethargic. I did enjoy your closing comment though: Anyone calling for GW's resignation or impeachment yet? You must not have seen the Inauguration.... ;) |
| # March 16th, 2005 9:50 PM jonts |
| johntant
"The real question is why are US troops held to a different standard?" You honestly cant see why US troops should be held to a different standard than troops from 3rd world countries? I used to beleive that the majority of americans wanted their country to be a champion of human rights and to set a standard for the world to follow- but not according to people like you.... |
| # March 17th, 2005 2:35 PM mbrlr |
| These were our troops and this was our prison camp ---- wait! Gulag! That's it! Anyway, we were treating these prisoners, many of whom were not captured in fighting us, btw, or were actually originally really opposed to the US, supposedly in line with the Geneva Convention. The administration really didn't like to admit that because the administration really doesn't like the Geneva Convention. Just ask the new Attorney General. That lack of specificity and authority, both in Washington and in Iraq, is what led to this horror. And although investigations may have been occurring, there is no guarantee they would have been truly effective or substantial without pressure from the press. This administration loathes coverage that it can't control. And as for coverage of our sins versus the sins of UN troops...the sins of our troops are the ones we are most easily able to correct and should most feel guilty about and do penance. While the guilt is my Baptist upbringing coming out and the penance is my current Catholicism showing, both notions are correct and in line with our history and our traditions. As for the UN troops, their actions are horrible and should be dealt with, but let's deal with our own offenses and not use those of the UN as some sort of excuse for what we've done wrong. |
| # March 18th, 2005 5:35 PM Laura |
| mbrlr: "As for the UN troops, their actions are horrible and should be dealt with, but let's deal with our own offenses and not use those of the UN as some sort of excuse for what we've done wrong."
I don't see why it has to be either/or - abu Ghraib is being dealt with appropriately. As the country providing the most funding for the UN, it is incumbent upon us to be the one to step up to the plate and demand reform there, or stop our contributions. If other countries want to finance child rape, that doesn't mean we should. |
Log in here
or Get an Account here.