Slashdot Mirror
How the UN Might Have Inadvertently Started a Cholera Epidemic In Haiti
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Celso Perez and Muneer Ahmad write in The Atlantic that despite evidence to the contrary, for nearly three years, the United Nations has categorically denied that it introduced cholera into Haiti after the country suffered a devastating earthquake in 2010. Since then, cholera has killed more than 8,000 people and infected more than 600,000, creating an ongoing epidemic. According to extensive documentation by scientists and journalists, peacekeeping troops belonging to the UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) inadvertently but negligently brought cholera into the country several months after the January 2010 earthquake. That October, troops from Nepal carrying the disease were stationed at a military base near the town of Méyè. Because of inadequate water and sanitation facilities at the base, cholera-infected sewage contaminated the Artibonite River, the largest river in Haiti and one the country's main water sources. As locals consumed the contaminated water, cholera spread across the country. Absent from Haiti for over a century, cholera is now projected to plague the country for at least another decade. 'By refusing to acknowledge responsibility, the United Nations jeopardizes its standing and moral authority in Haiti and in other countries where its personnel are deployed,' writes the Washington Post Editorial Board adding that without 'speaking frankly about its own responsibility for introducing cholera to Haiti, the organization does a disservice to Haiti and Haitians, who deserve better.'"
They're poor as hell and need aid of their own and they have rebels.
Cholera is one of those things that can easily be kept at bay with education and best practices.
1) Boil your water before drinking or using in any food that will not otherwise be cooked thoroughly.
2) Develop better latrine habits
These two things can go a long, long way towards beating the epidemic.
=Smidge=
Even if they did accidentally bring cholera in, it's the terrible state of sanitation in Haiti that has turned it into an epidemic. Haiti would have likely seen cholera even if the UN hadn't come in. Someone would have just brought it in later. And I dare say they help the outsiders have provided has far outweighed any harm they've done.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
Know what to do with poop. If you don't know this, you can't help other people do it. When you learn what to do with poop, then you can help other people with their poop.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Bwahahahahahahaha. The UN lost it's moral authority decades ago, when it became nothing more than a organ to bash Israel and the US.
Both deserve to be bashed.
The UN claims immunity under the "Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations", which is largely what it sounds like.
However, Article VIII "Settlement of Disputes" states that:
Section 29. The United Nations shall make provisions for appropriate modes of settlement of :
(a) disputes arising out of contracts or other disputes of a private law character to which the United Nations is a party;
(b) disputes involving any official of the United Nations who by reason of his official position enjoys immunity, if immunity has not been waived by the Secretary-General.
Section 30. All differences arising out of the interpretation or application of the present convention shall be referred to the International Court of Justice, unless in any case it is agreed by the parties to have recourse to another mode of settlement. If a difference arises between the United Nations on the one hand and a Member on the other hand, a request shall be made for an advisory opinion on any legal question involved in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter and Article 65 of the Statue of the Court. The opinion given by the Court shall be accepted as decisive by the parties.
So, the Convention under which they claim immunity requires them to "make provisions for appropriate modes of settlement"(something which apparently hasn't happened since 1946, no doubt Coming Real Soon Now) and makes the UN an entity subject to ICJ jurisdiction in the event of a dispute between a UN member state and the UN itself.
It certainly is the case that the random Nepalese troops who actually introduced the Cholera enjoy diplomat-grade immunity under this convention (and, even if they didn't, their actual crime is probably some sort of relatively minor sanitary code violation); but the assertion that the UN, as an organization, enjoys immunity is suspect at best.
I think the UN has a responsibility to ensure that if any of its troops have cholera, they're not at a base with poor sanitation, as an organisational lesson if not a matter of responsibility and blame.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
It's a mistake to point the finger at the United Nations. As the original editorial noted, Haiti does not have a system to deliver clean water. Any time you have 90 percent of a population drinking from the sewer it's only a matter of time before you have an outbreak. Past efforts to build a modern clean-water delivery system have been thwarted by civil war, endemic corruption and general ineptitude
Haiti doesn't need another failed aid project. What Haiti needs is a bureaucracy to construct and manage their own infrastructure. Haiti also needs to build a judicial infrastructure that's capable of rooting out corruption.
I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
First, there's no evidence that UN has started the cholera epidemic. No bacterial strain genotyping has been performed. Second, in such cases a cholera epidemic is more-or-less a certainty - it makes no sense to search for the index case, especially because choleric bacteria occur naturally.
O Rly?
No. It lists its authority when they did nothing worthwhile during the Rwanda genocide and the Bosnia genocide. TWO genocides and they did nothing.
The UN deserves to be laughed at and not be taken seriously.
The Palestine/Israel situation is another reason. But not due to bashing Israel, but for not being able to do anything at all to solve the conflict.
I'm pretty sure that the first rule of helping is "Don't introduce a hitherto absent, highly contagious, disease to a country infrastructurally incapable of coping with it, killing more than 7,000 and sickening just short of 600,000."
Well, maybe not the first rule; but one of the important ones. Virtually every country (even two-bit ones where these controls are largely nominal because the border functionaries are deeply inadequate to the task) has rules in place to avoid the introduction of novel crop pests and at least some diseases, so it isn't as though the concept is a novel one.
Failing to perform a "Do our staff harbor any diseases that would spread like wildfire in a country with ghastly sanitation and minimal resources" check before heading into a country with ghastly sanitation and minimal resources is somewhere between incompetence and reckless indifference.
I remember reading an article perhaps 9 months after the cholera outbreak, I think in the New England Journal of Medicine about how the epidemiologists had identified the source of the cholera infection to the Nepalese troops. It's fairly absurd that the UN has continued to deny that this happened for well over 2 years.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1012928
Yeah, I totally recall how the UN wasn't involved in bosnia at all. Or maybe that's the opposite of what is true
Bullshit. They did nothing. They released resolution afterwards declaring them genocides and tried to prosecute to aggressors. But that's it.
Yes, they declared to extend their mission to serbian Bosnia. In reality and effectively they just watched and did nothing worthwhile for weeks and months.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_Massacre
"In April 1993, the United Nations declared the besieged enclave of Srebrenica in the Drina Valley of north-eastern Bosnia a "safe area" under UN protection. However, in July 1995, the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR), represented on the ground by a 400-strong contingent of Dutch peacekeepers, Dutchbat, did not prevent the town's capture by the VRS and the subsequent massacre."
"Then in 2005, in a message to the tenth anniversary commemoration of the genocide, the Secretary-General of the United Nations noted that, while blame lay first and foremost with those who planned and carried out the massacre and those who assisted and harboured them, great nations had failed to respond adequately, the UN itself had made serious errors of judgement and the tragedy of Srebrenica would haunt the UN's history forever"
In a nutshell : you are talking bullshit, you don't deserve the mod points and the UN did nothing. End of.
No. It lists its authority when they did nothing worthwhile during the Rwanda genocide and the Bosnia genocide. TWO genocides and they did nothing.
The UN deserves to be laughed at and not be taken seriously.
The Palestine/Israel situation is another reason. But not due to bashing Israel, but for not being able to do anything at all to solve the conflict.
The UN is just the international community of countries. If they can not agree on a action to take, that's the fault of all the states and their communication. Don't act like the UN is some external entity. It's just the states!
So I read what you and GP say as
I don't think that makes any sense.
Yes, it is fair to criticize when intervening action is not taken, and we can also criticize that unanimous agreement is necessary. Latest example: Syria.
When criticizing China and Russia however, you have to make sure not to be hypocritical. The US is picking the best options for itself on many other issues: Isreals arbitrary settling policies, ignoring international treaties, not subjecting itself to international courts, no extradition, starting illegal wars (Iraq, Afghanistan).
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Epidemiologists can now use DNA signatures to trace exactly where bacteria come from and where they've been. They can tell which individual in a hospital transmitted a disease to another individual.
There's no question that this cholera strain came from Asia and it wasn't there before. And the Nepalese had leaks in their sewage pipes that they didn't repair after they were warned about it.
There were several reports in medical and scientific journals about this, and people on this list have linked to them.
The scientists say that the cholera was likely to have come from Nepal and the politicians "categorically deny it." Who are you going to believe?
Here's the Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010%E2%80%932011_Haiti_cholera_outbreak