If I can't read, then it'd be hard for my write, .
Thank for proving my point. I rest my case.
@ Boxxy: Patience, I was metaphorically stepping on a fly, exhibiting shades of my old forum days. I'll get to you in a while.
Meanwhile, the question I pitched to you still stands:
But my question remains, did you visit the Congo ? Or Gaza ? Yes or no will do (and nothing else please).
Edit: to respond to :
Boxxy said:
Actually the United Nations does a very good job across the world when it's not being judged on old mistakes. The United Nation's is keeping Gaza from economic and social collapse and it's doing a good job in the Democratic Republic of Congo when it's managed to get several tribe and rebel groups to surrender to the government and actually take a more peaceful role in the politics of the nation. Only one main rebel group actually exists in the country so i'll call that a success.
Did you go outside the capital of Zimbabwe? I've seen the reports for Al Jazera. Civil servants who are quite well off compared to the averge Zimbabwean citizens in the amount they earn can't even afford to live a decent life and they get paid in dollars because the government has abandoned their own currency you can even find notes just lying around the street cause it's worthless.
Look at the human development index. Zimbabwe has the lowest in the world followed by the DRC and Niger.
I think you'll find that a large part of Gaza (and the Palestinian people's) fiscal imbalances and needs are met by aid pouring in from the rest of the Muslim world, particularly Arab states. UN aid is minuscule in comparison and nowhere near enough to meet the needs on its own.
Atop which the UN is primarily a forum for international settlement and co-operation not for dispensing aid. The UN's role (self appointed, I might add) is to resolve the situation and carve our a better permanent deal for the people in Gaza and in Palestine, not the provision of day to day necessities and amenities.
In this, its safe to say, it has failed spectacularly.
Regarding Congo, UN asked countries to provide peacekeeping forces, those countries did so. The role of the UN was simply that of making the request. But lets say the presence of peace keeping forces is the UN's credit.
However the disarmament of local militias came under the watch of heavy NATO troop presence, without which its almost impossible to claim the rebels would have stood down. This is because UN peacekeepers are just that, a peacekeeping force, they do not have credibility (and face it ability) to be an effective threat to an already established militancy. What the peacekeepers did do was ensure law and order,
after the NATO spurred disarmament occurred, effectively glorified policing and rebuilding work (both of which are important but the point is they did not have a role in convincing the rebels to disarm in the first place).
NATO is not the UN. NATO was not there with the same agenda that UN was there with. The agenda of NATO nations are more tied to the mineral resources (especially diamonds) that Congo posses. The UN's agenda is tied to human wellfare.
I'm a big fan of the HDI but it doesn't tell the full story, statistics are never a full picture. There are nations such as India performing fairly well in the HDI but where conditions for the worst of the poor are more desperate than in African nations.