How the UN Might Have Inadvertently Started a Cholera Epidemic In Haiti 158
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.'"
Boil your water (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=
Re:Boil your water (Score:5, Informative)
Of Note. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Why Nepal is sending troops elsewhere? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why Nepal is sending troops elsewhere? (Score:5, Informative)
The UN [un.org] 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.
Re:Why Nepal is sending troops elsewhere? (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?
Old news, for physicians anyway (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
Re:Why Nepal is sending troops elsewhere? (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.
Re:Boil your water (Score:5, Informative)
The problem here is that in most of Haiti there's no power. The obvious answer may be to just burn wood, which is why the entire country has already been denuded of trees [wikipedia.org]. You can actually see their border with the Dominican Republic from space because one side has trees, and the other doesn't.
Re:United Nations jeopardizes its ... moral author (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, I totally recall how the UN wasn't involved in bosnia at all. Or maybe that's the opposite of what is true [wikipedia.org]
Re:Why Nepal is sending troops elsewhere? (Score:2, Informative)
The bitch of it is that this can be solved by giving every hatian a bottle of bleach. That's all it takes. All. Just put a little bit of bleach in the water and let it sit for 2-3 minutes.
Re:United Nations jeopardizes its ... moral author (Score:5, Informative)
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).
Re:UN's Fault? (Score:4, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org]