The U.N. is ridiculous, seriously ridiculous

[kumquatq3]

The story boils down to this:

 

The United Nations is embroiled in a dispute with American Jewish organizations over the funding of Palestinian banners in Gaza, and U.S. Ambassador John Bolton on Wednesday protested the "unacceptable" payments.

 

The dispute centers on the U.N. Development Program's payment for materials produced by the Palestinian Authority for Israel's disengagement from Gaza which include banners saying: "Gaza Today. The West Bank and Jerusalem Tomorrow"

 

Link to Story

 

You know, I like the U.N. and hate Bolton, but man do they just make you want to scream sometimes.

 

I can't find the specific mug they meantion, but I found:

 

 

Now, you might agree, but the UN should NOT be funding this kind of statement in any way.

[metadigital]

It's a message of peace and goodwill, isn't it?

[Kaftan Barlast]

The money was for "provideing support for communications to the public and media in Gaza" and "the content of which was the responsibility of the Palestinian Authority"

 

 

It would have cost even more to have "watchdogs" oversee that this money is not used for any 'illicit' purpouse.

[metadigital]

I volunteer to oversee the overseers' overseer.

[Drakron]

What UN funds being missused?

 

What that became news?

[kumquatq3]

It's a message of peace and goodwill, isn't it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Jerusalem tomarrow?!?!

 

 

at the very least the UN shouldn't, without voting, support that position. Much less fund it.

[SteveThaiBinh]

When asked about the U.S. government's response, Bolton said in a brief statement that "Funding this kind of activity is inappropriate and unacceptable."

No, it's not inappropriate. The use of the UNDP logo is inappropriate, but not the funding itself.

 

UNDP is a development agency, and it rightly takes a broad view of its role. Development includes the development of civil society, freedom of speech, and democracy, something I thought Mr. Bolton would have approved of. These banners express a peaceful political aspiration, and are therefore an entirely legitimate use of UNDP funds. The UNDP is not supporting the aspiration itself, any more than the state funding of political parties in other countries represents support for their views.

[Commissar]

Anyone else curious why it's in English? The text on the cup, I mean?

[kumquatq3]

The money was for "provideing support for communications to the public and media in Gaza" and "the content of which was the responsibility of the Palestinian Authority"

 

It would have cost even more to have "watchdogs" oversee that this money is not used for any 'illicit' purpouse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So, if I gave 10 million dollars to Bin Laden for him to by medical supplies for little kids, and he turns around and buys weapons with that, can I get out of it by saying "well, I thought it was for a good cause?"

 

HELL NO

 

There should have been watch dogs or no funding at all.

[Drakron]

Jerusalem tomarrow?!?!

 

 

at the very least the UN shouldn't, without voting, support that position. Much less fund it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

UN General Assembly Resolution 181

 

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm

 

The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations. The Trusteeship Council shall be designated to discharge the responsibilities of the Administering Authority on behalf of the United Nations.

[kumquatq3]

UNDP is a development agency, and it rightly takes a broad view of its role.  Development includes the development of civil society, freedom of speech, and democracy, something I thought Mr. Bolton would have approved of. 

 

Thats fine, but I want some money for north Korea next that says "Tomarrow South Korea"

 

Their job is to help people get rights, not to help them get their politcal message out about indirectly related issues.

 

or is Jerusalem nessasary for their freedom of speech now

 

These banners express a peaceful political aspiration, and are therefore an entirely legitimate use of UNDP funds

 

It has clearly been peaceful

 

The UNDP is not supporting the aspiration itself, any more than the state funding of political parties in other countries represents support for their views

 

but without watching where the moeny went, they allowed themselves to be seen as supporting a side. A "our bad" after the fact isn't sufficent.

[kumquatq3]

Jerusalem tomarrow?!?!

 

 

at the very least the UN shouldn't, without voting, support that position. Much less fund it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

UN General Assembly Resolution 181

 

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm

 

The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations. The Trusteeship Council shall be designated to discharge the responsibilities of the Administering Authority on behalf of the United Nations.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

you have, in fact, cited nothing.

 

CORPUS SEPARATUM - Term used in the U.N. 1947 Partition Plan to describe the proposed independent status of Jerusalem that would not be the exclusive property of either the proposed Arab or Jewish state.

 

Like all General Assembly resolutions, this was only a recommendation rather than an internationally legally binding instrument like the League of Nations' mandate for Palestine

[SteveThaiBinh]

Their job is to help people get rights, not to help them get their politcal message out about indirectly related issues.

 

or is Jerusalem nessasary for their freedom of speech now

UNDP's job is to build up freedom of speech and peaceful politics by allowing people to express the political messages of their own choosing, not just those that are palatable to the US.

These banners express a peaceful political aspiration, and are therefore an entirely legitimate use of UNDP funds

It has clearly been peaceful

Just because it's the violence that gets the headlines, doesn't mean there've been no peaceful efforts to present the Palestinian case. We should be supporting both Israel and the Palestinians in making their arguments peacefully. Israel, however, doesn't need UNDP money, but if it did, I hope it would get it.

but without watching where the moeny went, they allowed themselves to be seen as supporting a side. A "our bad" after the fact isn't sufficent.

Everybody makes mistakes, and the mistake here was to allow the use of the UNDP logo, nothing more. The funding of peaceful expression of political views is entirely within UNDP's remit.

[kumquatq3]

UNDP's job is to build up freedom of speech and peaceful politics by allowing people to express the political messages of their own choosing, not just those that are palatable to the US.

 

I disagree, I think it is there to help ALLOW them to say what they want, legally speaking. Not to fund their specific propaganda which HAD THE UNDP LOGO ON IT.

 

Just because it's the violence that gets the headlines, doesn't mean there've been no peaceful efforts to present the Palestinian case. We should be supporting both Israel and the Palestinians in making their arguments peacefully. Israel, however, doesn't need UNDP money, but if it did, I hope it would get it.

 

1. I agree that we should give them the ability to speak, but I disagree that money is correctly spent on coffee mugs citing not only UNDP logo, but a specific message that does not sing the praises of the current withdrawal so much as it only demands more.

 

2. So, the best use of those funds was to make the case of the Palestinians to the..... Palestinians with coffee mugs?

 

I don't think presenting the Palestinians case to themselves with coffee mugs was the best use.

 

Everybody makes mistakes, and the mistake here was to allow the use of the UNDP logo, nothing more.

 

Or watch how the money was spent, but I think there was more.

 

The funding of peaceful expression of political views is entirely within UNDP's remit.

 

Here is the difference: If you bought a printing press and gave it to a respectable group to make newspapers, then I understand you can't be accountable for what they print and you are just supporting free speech. Even that is touch and go tho. I think, more correctly, it would be a case of the UNDP helping to let a goverment allow it's people to speak freely.

 

But when you give them funds to print a specific message...than, logo or not, you are seen as giving support to that message. That is NOT the USDP place or service.

 

and I don't by the "O, we just gave them the funds to use as they saw fit" arguement.

 

The USDP needs to be accountable for what happens to the money it gives out, don't you think? What if it ended up going towards weapons?

[SteveThaiBinh]

I disagree, I think it is there to help ALLOW them to say what they want, legally speaking. Not to fund their specific propaganda which HAD THE UNDP LOGO ON IT.

This is taken from UNDP's website:

UNDP's core services to support national processes of democratic transitions, focus on: (1) Policy advice and technical support; (2) Capacity development of institutions and individuals; (3) Advocacy, communications, and public information; (4) Promoting and brokering dialogue; and (5) Knowledge networking and sharing of good practices.

These mugs come under 'advocacy', in that they represent a campaign for a particular policy. It's an essential part of the democratic process, and I'm sure UNDP is working on all the others at the same time. Unfortunately, this one aspect has been publicised and attacked, while the rest has been ignored, but that's tabloid journalism for you.

 

The whole point is to build up peaceful, public debate and campaigning on whatever issues the people feel are important, in order to strengthen peaceful politics and weaken terrorism. I'm sure UNDP insists that the messages are not pro-violence, but if it were to go beyond that and insist they be pro-Israeli as well, the Palestinians would become disillusioned and the effort would fail.

Here is the difference: If you bought a printing press and gave it to a respectable group to make newspapers, then I understand you can't be accountable for what they print and you are just supporting free speech.

Newspapers and slogans on mugs are both expressions of free speech. Local priorities have to take precedence over what is palatable to Western donors.

 

On what grounds should UNDP have refused funding for these mugs? If you're trying to promote peaceful democratic governance, you can refuse funding for messages that promote violence, but what's wrong with this message? Only that it promotes one side of the argument, and upsets supporters of the other side. A fine democracy it would be if that were unacceptable.

[Atreides]

If this was about how say the Bush admin used public funds on their political messages or groups closely affiliated to the Republicans it'd be a scandal. The Palestinians must be fuzzier or something.

[SteveThaiBinh]

If this was about how say the Bush admin used public funds on their political messages or groups closely affiliated to the Republicans it'd be a scandal.  The Palestinians must be fuzzier or something.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Different context. The United States has a long tradition of democracy and doesn't need the UN to come in and help them understand how democracy works in practice.

 

I can't believe I just wrote that.

[Dark Moth]

A lot of it has to do simply with anti-American hypocrasy. Many people repeatedly condemn the U.S. for its actions, no matter what they be, while ruthlessly defending the U.N. and never once condemning it. With all the scandal they're facing (Oil-for-food, the workers in Africa), they've done a great job in undermining themselves.

[kumquatq3]

For starters: Just so it's out there, I enjoy debating like this. Not to say I don't very truely believe in my stance, but.....long story short I never keep hard feeling about stuff like this. I'm not in this because I think your a jerk for disagreeing with me. K?

 

I disagree, I think it is there to help ALLOW them to say what they want, legally speaking. Not to fund their specific propaganda which HAD THE UNDP LOGO ON IT.

This is taken from UNDP's website:

UNDP's core services to support national processes of democratic transitions, focus on: (1) Policy advice and technical support; (2) Capacity development of institutions and individuals; (3) Advocacy, communications, and public information; (4) Promoting and brokering dialogue; and (5) Knowledge networking and sharing of good practices.

These mugs come under 'advocacy', in that they represent a campaign for a particular policy. It's an essential part of the democratic process, and I'm sure UNDP is working on all the others at the same time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, they are supposed advocate things like free speech and basic human rights, , hence the "to support national processes of democratic transitions" part, NOT a specific political message. Especially about land.

 

Here is one of the heads of the UNDP:

 

"UNDP takes the need for complete political neutrality very seriously," Dervis said, adding that while the agency's mandate includes helping entities to improve their ability to govern effectively "we cannot be involved in political messaging."

 

See the difference between advocating things like human rights and advocating a political message?

 

this is also from their website, right below what you quoted:

 

UNDP's work in democratic governance can be summarised into the following categories :

 

 

[kumquatq3]

Newspapers and slogans on mugs are both expressions of free speech.  Local priorities have to take precedence over what is palatable to Western donors.

 

The first part is the problem. UDNP job is to get free speech and human rights, not to fund the use of them.

 

 

On what grounds should UNDP have refused funding for these mugs?

 

Because it's not their job.

 

If you're trying to promote peaceful democratic governance, you can refuse funding for messages that promote violence, but what's wrong with this message?

 

It isn't supporting democratic reform or human rights reform, it's supporting a political message.

 

Only that it promotes one side of the argument, and upsets supporters of the other side.  A fine democracy it would be if that were unacceptable.

 

I agree, but the UNDP isn't a democracy, and it isn't in the buisness of political messages.

 

It's there to help get free elections and human rights. Not to help people say political messages. Thats their own job once they get the rights. Maybe they should have had the message: Now that you have Gaza back, you should hold free elections to allow those in Gaza to have a say in goverment.

 

it's Simple: The UNDP spent money carelessly and thus it ended up being spent incorrect. That was wrong. They didn't, as far as I can tell, do it with the intent to over reach their stated agenda tho.

[kumquatq3]

If this was about how say the Bush admin used public funds on their political messages or groups closely affiliated to the Republicans it'd be a scandal.  The Palestinians must be fuzzier or something.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Different context. The United States has a long tradition of democracy and doesn't need the UN to come in and help them understand how democracy works in practice.

 

I can't believe I just wrote that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Our mind control device is working perfectly

 

A lot of it has to do simply with anti-American hypocrasy.  Many people repeatedly condemn the U.S. for its actions, no matter what they be, while ruthlessly defending the U.N. and never once condemning it.  With all the scandal they're facing (Oil-for-food, the workers in Africa), they've done a great job in undermining themselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think there is something to be said for that stance

[SteveThaiBinh]

For starters: Just so it's out there, I enjoy debating like this. Not to say I don't very truely believe in my stance, but.....long story short I never keep hard feeling about stuff like this. I'm not in this because I think your a jerk for disagreeing with me. K?

K, I get that . It's interesting for me to read an opposing point of view. Please don't be offended if I split your posts up a bit when I reply - I know that bothers some people, but I'm doing it because I want to give a serious response to your arguments, though I can't respond to everything.

...the UNDP ... isn't in the buisness of political messages. It's there to help get free elections and human rights. Not to help people say political messages. Thats their own job once they get the rights.

We're interepreting the job of the UNDP very differently, and I think the disagreement centres around the approach to advocacy and campaigning. The job of the UNDP is not to advocate directly for freedom of speech and democracy. It's job is to develop the abilities of Palestinians to advocate for themselves, on issues of their own choosing and in a democratic and peaceful way. That is how democratic governance is really supported and made a reality on the ground. In order to do that, you have to give as much control as possible to the Palestinians, so that they 'own' the democratic process. Otherwise it's just a foreign intervention with no lasting effect.

 

Of course, that means that the Palestinians will be using UNDP money to advocate for things that are very controversial, not least to the Israelis. But that's still a legitimate use of the money if it succeeds in promoting peaceful advocacy as a means of political expression, because that will inevitably strengthen democratic development (and weaken terrorism).

 

UNDP retains its political neutrality by funding the campaigns of any non-violent groups, even those with competing views, without endorsing the message of one group or another. It's exactly the same as states which fund all competing political parties equally. That's why I consider the only problem here to be the use of the logo.

 

When the guy says "We can't be involved in political messaging" I wonder what he's thinking of - every message is political in one way or another. A campaign for free education is a political message.

Maybe they should have had the message: Now that you have Gaza back, you should hold free elections to allow those in Gaza to have a say in goverment.

That's also a political message.

The US and American Jewish Congress are not tabloids.

No, but I think that like a tabloid journalist they are magnifying one problem and not looking at the situation as a whole.

[kumquatq3]

Maybe they should have had the message: Now that you have Gaza back, you should hold free elections to allow those in Gaza to have a say in goverment.

 

That's also a political message.

 

But one that has to do with democratic reform, which is their main purpose

 

We're interepreting the job of the UNDP very differently, and I think the disagreement centres around the approach to advocacy and campaigning. The job of the UNDP is not to advocate directly for freedom of speech and democracy.

 

No, their not suppose to go to Cuba and try to get a Democracy. They are suppose to help push along those states that seemingly want a democracy.

 

It's job is to develop the abilities of Palestinians to advocate for themselves, on issues of their own choosing and in a democratic and peaceful way. That is how democratic governance is really supported and made a reality on the ground. In order to do that, you have to give as much control as possible to the Palestinians, so that they 'own' the democratic process. Otherwise it's just a foreign intervention with no lasting effect.

 

But listen to their job in their own words:

We help countries strengthen their electoral and legislative systems, improve access to justice and public administration, and develop a greater capacity to deliver basic services to those most in need.

 

It's a stretch to bend any of that into paying for mugs that bear the UNDP symbol and the slogan "tomarrow jerusalem", don't you think?

 

UNDP isn't just there to give money to any state that says they want to be democratic, they are there to coach them on the best way to go about it and to provide funds (with oversite). This they failed to do. Mugs with potentially hostile slogans on them are not the best route to a stable democracy nor are they a wise way to spend the worlds money.

 

But that's still a legitimate use of the money if it succeeds in promoting peaceful advocacy as a means of political expression, because that will inevitably strengthen democratic development (and weaken terrorism).

 

I think the message on the mugs will only take the focus away from a stable democracy and shift it to land, which has clearly led to terrorism and violence. That is not UNDP place.

 

If the UN is paying for a message that could be counter productive to it's main goal of stable democracy, then something is wrong with that picture.

 

UNDP retains its political neutrality by funding the campaigns of any non-violent groups, even those with competing views, without endorsing the message of one group or another. It's exactly the same as states which fund all competing political parties equally. That's why I consider the only problem here to be the use of the logo.

 

If you pay for a message to be broadcast without doing the exact same thing for the otherside (why not give the gaza settlers mugs then?) then you effectively promote that view. Logo or not.

 

When the guy says "We can't be involved in political messaging" I wonder what he's thinking of - every message is political in one way or another. A campaign for free education is a political message.

 

Yes, to some degree, but generally people allow that to fall into more of a human rights/access to information territory.

[metadigital]

...

If you're trying to promote peaceful democratic governance, you can refuse funding for messages that promote violence, but what's wrong with this message?

It isn't supporting democratic reform or human rights reform, it's supporting a political message. [1]

...

It's there to help get free elections and human rights. Not to help people say political messages. That's their own job once they get the rights. Maybe they should have had the message: Now that you have Gaza back, you should hold free elections to allow those in Gaza to have a say in goverment.[2]

 

[3]it's Simple: The UNDP spent money carelessly and thus it ended up being spent incorrect. That was wrong. They didn't, as far as I can tell, do it with the intent to over reach their stated agenda tho.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. I think you are splitting hairs. If the group is unrepresented (or inappropriately represented) then printing their message may be the only way to broadcast it. This may not be the case in this situation, but your generalisation is dangerous.

 

Think of it this way: the message wasn't "Kill every Jew". It is entirely plausible that the message was of hope for a peaceful settlement in Jerusalem, as the next step in the road map.

 

2. No issues there; I would suggest that is a good idea.

 

3. I think there is no doubt that the result has been far from what was anticipated, when the funds were originally disbursed. So there is no argument that there was a lack of care.

[kumquatq3]

It is entirely plausible that the message was of hope for a peaceful settlement in Jerusalem, as the next step in the road map.

 

It might be (tho israel would have something to say about that)

 

But the UDNP doesn't have the job or the right to decide that