Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

America: The Chief Subsidizer of UN Rapists and Traffickers

Expand Messages
  • Beowulf
    America: The Chief Subsidizer of UN Rapists and Traffickers Posted By Phyllis Chesler On September 21, 2011 In early September, the world s most ineffective
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 21, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      America: The Chief Subsidizer of UN Rapists and Traffickers

      Posted By Phyllis Chesler On September 21, 2011

      In early September, the world's most ineffective collection of "low life"
      thugs had what they like to call
      <http://www.un.org/en/ga/info/meetings/66schedule.shtml> "high level"
      meetings [1] on disease, disabilities, and the rights of migrant workers.
      And, on September 13, 2011, the 66th session - drum roll, please - of the
      United Nation's General Assembly formally convened. On September 22, they
      will get down to the real business at hand, the only thing the UN has ever
      really done effectively, namely, the legalization of Jew hatred. That's the
      day the UN will celebrate the tenth anniversary of their Durban
      ("anti-Semitic, pro-racist") conference in which they named Israel as the
      world's only "racist" state. On September 23, former terrorist turned
      President Mahmoud Abbas will request that the UN admit a twentieth Arab
      Muslim (so-called "Palestinian") state.
      http://pajamasmedia.com/files/2011/09/solzhenitsyn.jpg [2]

      This global pogrom against Israel is being waged with a weapon of mass
      destruction, namely the Orwellian propaganda machine which has demonized the
      Jewish state so effectively that were it to be militarily attacked (as it
      has been, over and over), few nations would come to its aid (none have) and
      most would condemn its right to defend itself; indeed, they would label
      Jewish self-defense as "an act of naked aggression" for which Israel would
      be expected to apologize and pay Muslim-style blood money. This, too, has
      already happened. Were our nation to come to the aid of its ally, Israel,
      America would also be further demonized.

      But I do not want to focus on the subjects of racism, Judeophobia,
      "Islamophobia," or on the rights of "Palestinian" Arabs. Many other
      journalists are doing so. Actually, I do but from an entirely different
      point of view. I want to discuss the kind of human beings who are employed
      at the UN, how they treat each other on the job, but especially how they
      treat the vulnerable civilians who are under their protection. In other
      words: I want to focus on the professional ethics of the people who are
      voting on such weighty, global issues, and on the institutionalized crimes
      they commit under the auspices of the UN.

      Nearly forty years ago, in his 1972 Nobel Prize acceptance speech (some
      honorees are actually worthy), Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said:

      A quarter of a century ago, with great hopes from all mankind, the United
      Nations Organization was born. Alas, in an immoral world it too grew up

      In 1973, Shirley Hazzard, an Australian civil servant who had worked for the
      UN Secretariat for a decade in New York, published a book about it. In
      Defeat of an Ideal: A Study of the Self-Destruction of the United Nations,
      Hazzard described a level of mediocrity, incompetence, petty despotism,
      corruption, hypocrisy, and overall impotence, which was so non-redeemable
      that, in her view, the otherwise lofty UN ideals were "being defeated by the
      manner in which the present body executes, or claims to execute them."

      And in 1990, Hazzard wrote another book, Countenance of Truth: The United
      Nations and the Waldheim Case, in which she indicted the UN again,
      explaining that the "problem" of the Austrian (and one-time Nazi) UN
      Secretary General Kurt Waldheim was merely "symptomatic of the (ongoing)
      structural defects" at the UN which include non-accountability,
      non-transparency, incompetence, cowardice, and exaggerated self-importance.
      Only in such a setting, Hazzard writes, could such a

      deceitful figure be presented as a paragon, his very deficiencies exalted
      into talents, and his fawnings on tyrants rationalized as consummate
      diplomacy throughout ten of this world's most cruel and dangerous years.

      I wonder what either of these whistleblowers might have to say about the UN


      God must love whistleblowers - I surely hope so, because no one else really
      does. Those whom whistleblowers expose - and that includes the bystanders
      and the bureaucrats - hate them. Whistleblowers ruin the party, and threaten
      the high life and the even higher self-regard that the scams allow.
      Therefore, the evildoers demean, ostracize, impoverish, ignore, crush, and,
      if necessary, try to kill the whistleblowers. Even when whistleblowers are
      willing to risk their jobs and their lives, they do not always "win" their
      cause. And, when a whistleblower does succeed, he or she may still end up in
      hiding or unemployed or murdered while evil-doers soon pick up the old scam.

      In the early 1970s, Detective Frank ("police corruption") Serpico was the
      torchbearer for whistleblowers. He passed that torch along to Karen
      ("plutonium") Silkwood in the 1980s and to Erin("hexavalent-chromium")
      Brockovich in the 1990s. One 21st century heroic torchbearer, Kathryn
      ("United Nations sex traffickers") Bolkovac, like her three predecessors, is
      now the subject of a film <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0896872/> [4].
      Bolkovac also wrote a book
      <http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?pid=475275> [5] on her

      By the way: Feature films and documentaries do not necessarily accomplish
      any more than the whistleblower does. People tend to believe that the fact a
      film exists somehow means that the problem has been solved.

      Not so.


      Kathryn Bolkovac

      In 1999, Bolkovac, originally a cop from Nebraska, became a UN peacekeeper
      in Sarajevo, where she discovered that the UN peacekeepers, the UN- hired
      military contractor (DynCorp), and the local police had been trafficking
      underage female sex slaves into Sarajevo both for profit and for their own
      twisted pleasure. Their savage treatment of these frightened, mainly East
      European and Russian girls, which included routine torture, gang-rape,
      semi-starvation, overwork, primitive living and "working" conditions, is
      standard behavior for pimps, traffickers, and obviously for UN staff as

      In the film version, Bolkovac tried to save some girls. This only led to
      their being more severely tortured, while the other girls were forced to
      watch - and then murdered. Bolkovac, like others, tried to hold the UN
      accountable for these enormous crimes. The result? She was threatened and
      her employment terminated. Bolkovac went public with the information - which
      was heroic but which changed nothing.

      So far, Satan still has the last word.

      Like Hazzard, I also once worked at the United Nations; I have some skin in
      the game. I am, therefore, quite familiar with the UN culture in which civil
      servants and diplomats hold onto the passports of their home-country
      domestic servants/slaves, and make them work sixteen hour days, seven days a
      week, for no money and for very little food; the culture in which the same
      UN personnel sexually harass and assault their female colleagues and
      subordinates and when reported, even sued, get off, at most, with the
      proverbial slap on the wrist; a culture in which UN "peacekeeping" troops
      rape and traffic the very girls, boys, and women they are supposed to be
      protecting from war-zone atrocities - for example, the use of rape as a
      weapon of war. Given the UN's general level of ineffectiveness (other than
      in legalizing Jew hatred), the body is also remarkably effective in
      protecting their barbarian and un-trained employees.

      <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al3anBiHwmI> YouTube Preview Image[7]

      For example: In 1988, Luis Maria Gomez, the Argentine assistant secretary
      general at the UN, was sued by his assistant, American citizen Catherine
      [8]. She filed a sexual harassment complaint. As a result, Claxon was barred
      from a promotion and her employment was terminated. She took her case to the
      UN Administrative Tribunal. Although the numerous courts and tribunals
      acknowledged that her claim was supported by strong evidence, Claxon's case
      was eventually blocked by Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar. Gomez
      was granted diplomatic immunity and returned to Argentina.

      In 2003, Joumana Al-Mahayni
      <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124233350385520879.html> [9], an employee
      working in the office of the United Nations Development Programme in Kuwait,
      filed a similar claim against her male boss and, of course, received similar
      results. Again, the UN protected her boss, Mr. Yusuf Mansur; again, there
      was ample evidence that he had sexually assaulted his subordinate.
      Nevertheless, and predictably, Ms. Al-Mahayni's employment was terminated.
      Many years later, she received a settlement of $10,000; she was never
      reimbursed for her legal fees or given a severance package. Mr. Mansur
      resigned and avoided litigation. The UN did not make any follow-up charges.

      In 2007, the American Civil Liberties Union
      [10] charged a UN diplomat from Kuwait, Major Waleed Al Saleh, and his wife
      with abusing their three female domestic servants from India. The ACLU
      stated that

      the women were forced to work every day from 6:30 or 7:00 a.m. until late in
      the night, sometimes as late as 1:30 a.m.the women.never received any of the
      money..They were subjected to threats and verbal and physical abuse,
      including one particularly violent incident in which Sabbithi (one of the
      servants) was knocked unconscious after being thrown against a counter by Al
      Saleh. The women were often not allowed time to eat or to use the bathroom
      and were frequently deprived of food. Two of them were allowed one hour off
      a month to attend church. The workers had their passports taken away and
      were isolated from contact with the external world.

      Ultimately the case was dismissed
      .DDC.htm/qx> [11] on the grounds of diplomatic immunity.

      Was Bolkovac's experience unique? Were UN peacekeepers particularly awful
      only in Sarajevo? On the contrary. UN peacekeepers were also accused of
      "sexual misconduct" not only in Kosovo/Serbia/Bosnia
      <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30286-2005Mar12.html> [12]
      in the 1990s, they were similarly accused in Sierra Leone (2002), Liberia
      (2003-2004), the Congo (2004), Haiti (2005-to the present day), and in the
      peacekeeping_missions.pdf> [13] (2005-to the present).

      How does the UN defend their dastardly peacekeepers? They argue that the
      troops often come from and serve in countries which have "poor records" in
      terms of "gender based violence." This is offered as a culturally relativist
      explanation or excuse for that old canard, "Must Boys be Boys?
      peacekeeping_missions.pdf> [13]" In Bolkovac
      thor-of-The-Whistleblower> 's case [14], the troops came from 45 different
      countries, and many of them could not use computers, write reports, or drive

      In addition, in terms of redress, the legal loopholes are gigantic - herds
      of elephants can easily spend their long lives grazing there.

      Neither the UN nor the countries in which UN employees actually commit the
      crimes can legally punish these men. Only their own home countries may do so
      - but why would they? The countries in which the UN operates are not
      responsible for the actions of foreign employees. One Haitian feminist
      peacekeeping_missions.pdf> [13] group has accused UN peacekeepers of "
      bringing their bad habits with them." The group is referring to an "increase
      in prostitution."

      Yes, there are ways the UN can feed already traumatized girls and women
      other than forcing them to provide sex services to UN peacekeeping troops as
      their only or best way of survival.


      In her excellent report for Refugees International, "Must Boys Be Boys
      peacekeeping_missions.pdf> [13]?" Sarah Martin describes a culture of fear
      and intimidationamong UN peacekeepers in the Congo (2004) which effectively
      silenced staff members who wanted to "report sexual misconduct by colleagues
      because they fear(ed) being stigmatized and punished as 'whistle-blowers.'"
      UN peacekeepers had sex with Congolese children and women, including
      Congolese adult female UN colleagues, simply because the practice was
      already pandemic. They did not view their role as stopping such violence or
      as refraining from joining it.

      As the UN peacekeepers ribaldly frolicked in the Congo, the UN orgy was also
      on in Liberia. An internal UN document was exposed in the mainstream media.
      In Liberia
      <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30286-2005Mar12.html> [12],
      UN peacekeeping troops had sex with

      girls as young as 12 years of age (who) are engaged in prostitution, forced
      into sex acts and sometimes photographed by UN peacekeepers in exchange for
      $10 or food or other commodities.

      Might the rape of a male child or a young man by a UN peacekeeper make the
      front pages and lead to an effective prosecution?

      Well - no. In July of 2011, an 18-year-old Haitian male rape victim accused
      a UN peacekeeper of "sexually assaulting" him. The rape was videotaped. A
      physician confirmed physical evidence of the rape - the evidence was clear
      even five weeks later. The UN found the man guilty, not of "sexual
      misconduct," but of allowing a civilian to enter the UN compound. The UN
      dismissed this <http://www.un.org/apps/news/printnews.asp?nid=39499> [15]
      as "the actions of only a few," and claimed that the UN "does its utmost to
      prevent such abuses from occurring" by "training troops to sensitize them to
      respect human rights."

      Wilsonian-influenced ideals of the UN are not realistic or realizable. In
      turn, the UN is predicated on the myth - nay, the lie - that UN diplomats
      and civil servants are morally upright, fair, decent, rational - and, not
      the vicious tyrants, bullies, thugs, liars, egomaniacs, cowards, and
      grifters that they truly are. Nor does the UN have a transparent system in
      place that would hold their mightily flawed personnel accountable for the
      crimes they commit.

      I am told we live in a post-feminist age. Thus, the information is in about
      what rape is and what rape does. We know that repeated public gang-rape and
      repeated rape is no longer just a spoil of war but is now a weapon of war.
      We know that prostitution is not a "victimless" crime, that the prostituted
      child or woman are the victims; they must become alcoholics and drug addicts
      in order to deaden their torment, they are given foul diseases by their
      "customers" who are sometimes their murderers because they infect them with
      AIDS; both their working lives and how long they actually live are
      significantly shorter than those who are not prostituted. The UN
      RAFFICKING_-_THE_FACTS_-_final.pdf> [17] (ironically enough) has estimated
      that over 32 million people are enslaved around the world and that the
      majority (80% or more) are sex slaves. We now know that sex trafficking is
      estimated as a $32 billion global business, that girls and women are
      kidnapped, sold by their parents, or tricked into it and rarely escape

      If it is clear that the United Nations allows its peacekeeping troops to
      commit major human rights atrocities, why would we allow such an institution
      to render decisions that are meant to affect the entire world? Why would we
      abide by such decisions? More important: Why should the United States fund
      an international criminal operation? The United States pays the lion's share
      of the Secretariat costs at the United Nations. Don't worry, UN Secretary
      General Ban Ki-moon has assured stressed American taxpayers that the
      two-year headquarters budget
      <http://www.foxnews.com/world/2009/09/17/budget-believe-billion/> [18]
      (2010-11) will only amount to a meager $4.92 billion.

      According to the UN peacekeeping website
      [19], the budget for the fiscal year 1 July 2011-30 June 2012 is
      approximately seven billion dollars. The United States is responsible for 27
      percent of this cost, or about two billion. This is far more than what Japan
      (1 billion), the UK (591 million), China (285 million), Spain (230 million),
      or Korea (164 million) pays for peacekeepers. Interestingly, under President
      Barack Obama's administration, the United States overpaid
      verpaid-millions-share-peacekeeping-expenses/> [20] its share of the UN
      peacekeeping budget. In fact, our overpayment of 287 million dollars is more
      than what most of the world's supporters - including China - pay for

      Why is the United States funding rapists, criminals, pimps, brothels, and
      sex traffickers? Why are we funding orgies? Why are we funding the most
      heinous betrayal of the world's most vulnerable civilians in war zones? Why
      are we overpaying for UN peacekeeping?

      Here is one thing we can do immediately. As of 2004, women comprised less
      than 6% of the total UN peacekeeping operations personnel. I would send many
      of the "boys" home and hire more well-trained, career military women and
      police officers like Bolkovac and, dare I say it, yes I dare: Until such
      time that developing countries develop effective policies about "gender
      violence," the UN peacekeeper troops should be comprised of "peacekeepers,"
      both male and female, from developed countries.

      Whether developed Western nations are actually "anti-gender violence" or not
      and, if so, whether they should continue to assume the "White Man's Burden,"
      is the subject of other pieces.

      Image: Oleg Golovnev
      <http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-348076p1.html?cr=00&pl=edit-00> [21] /
      Shutterstock.com <http://www.shutterstock.com/?cr=00&pl=edit-00> [22]


      Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

      URL to article:

      URLs in this post:

      [1] "high level" meetings:

      [2] Image: http://pajamasmedia.com/files/2011/09/solzhenitsyn.jpg

      [3] Image:

      [4] film: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0896872/

      [5] book: http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?pid=475275

      [6] Image:

      [7] Image: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al3anBiHwmI

      [8] Catherine Claxon:

      [9] Joumana Al-Mahayni:

      [10] American Civil Liberties Union:

      [11] case was dismissed:

      [12] Kosovo/Serbia/Bosnia:

      [13] Sudan:

      [14] Bolkovac's case:

      [15] UN dismissed this: http://www.un.org/apps/news/printnews.asp?nid=39499

      [16] Image: http://pajamasmedia.com/files/2011/09/shutterstock_70924978.jpg

      [17] UN:

      [18] the two-year headquarters budget:

      [19] UN peacekeeping website:

      [20] overpaid:

      [21] Oleg Golovnev:

      [22] Shutterstock.com: http://www.shutterstock.com/?cr=00&pl=edit-00

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.