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.'"

12 of 158 comments (clear)

  1. Why Nepal is sending troops elsewhere? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're poor as hell and need aid of their own and they have rebels.

    1. Re:Why Nepal is sending troops elsewhere? by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Informative

      They are peacekeeping troops, they are outsiders for a reason. Fighting "rebels" in their own country is not peacekeeping. As for why the Nepalese would send them, there are plenty of political and practical reasons, pride in "doing their bit", skills transfer, etc. Sadly this appears to be a case of good intentions leading directly to hell. I strongly agree that the UN should have the balls to acknowledge facts, mind you, I'm not sure what the facts are.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:Why Nepal is sending troops elsewhere? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Informative

      This(ignore the facebook bullshit, not needed to just read it online) offers some interesting theoretical tidbits.

      The UN explains the financial side.

      "Peacekeeping soldiers are paid by their own Governments according to their own national rank and salary scale. Countries volunteering uniformed personnel to peacekeeping operations are reimbursed by the UN at a standard rate, approved by the General Assembly, of a little over US$1,028 per soldier per month."(Some countries pay an additional stipend to soldiers on peacekeeping operations, large enough to be significant in areas with low salaries)

      I'd imagine that it's partly that Nepal is one of the countries poor enough that they can deploy peacekeepers for profit(the UN standard rate, per soldier, is paid in USD and identical across contributing nations, so it goes a hell of a lot further in some countries than in others, depending on local pay scales and willingness to accept casualties) and partly Nepal's history of fielding soldiers as part of (English speaking, which is convenient for international peacekeeping missions) British colonial activities.

    3. Re:Why Nepal is sending troops elsewhere? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sending "Peacekeeping Troops" is an enormous profit center for a small country. The country providing troops receives a huge stipend per troop. It far outstrips the cost of providing that troop.

      From the UN: "Peacekeeping soldiers are paid by their own Governments according to their own national rank and salary scale. Countries volunteering uniformed personnel to peacekeeping operations are reimbursed by the UN at a standard rate, approved by the General Assembly, of a little over US$1,028 per soldier per month."

      It is fairly certain that the total cost per troop to a country like Nepal is not anywhere close to $1028/month. Maybe $1028/year?

    4. Re:Why Nepal is sending troops elsewhere? by crmanriq · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why?

      The UN pays $1023/month per troop.

      A Nepalese soldier earns ~$100/month. (http://nepalarmy.mil.np/salary.php)
      (A Nepalese general earns ~$300/month.)

      Provide 1280 peacekeepers. (http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow/CMI18_E158_E163_2012_Nepalese_origin_supporting_information.pdf)
      Cost approximately $128,000/month.
      Receive compensation from UN of $1.3M. Profit > $1M/month.

      --
      If it's worth doing, it's worth doing for money.
    5. Re:Why Nepal is sending troops elsewhere? by cold+fjord · · Score: 5, Interesting
      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  2. Boil your water by Smidge204 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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=

  3. Of Note. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  4. Focus on solving the problem by dcooper_db9 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  5. Re:United Nations jeopardizes its ... moral author by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Old news, for physicians anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  7. Re:United Nations jeopardizes its ... moral author by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.