Two thirds of the UN's $732 million budget for Haitian "earthquake relief" has gone not to suffering Haitians, but to the pockets of UN employees. Reports George Russell of Fox News:
The United Nations has quietly upped this year's peacekeeping budget for earthquake-shattered Haiti to $732.4 million, with two-thirds of that amount going for the salary, perks and upkeep of its own personnel, not residents of the devastated island.
The world organization plans to spend the money on an expanded force of some 12,675 soldiers and police, plus some 479 international staffers, 669 international contract personnel, and 1,300 local workers, just for the 12 months ending June 30, 2010.
Some $495.8 million goes for salaries, benefits, hazard pay, mandatory R&R allowances and upkeep for the peacekeepers and their international staff support. Only about $33.9 million, or 4.6 percent, of that salary total is going to what the U.N. calls "national staff" attached to the peacekeeping effort.
Read the whole piece here.
- Blog Policy
- Login or register to post comments
Connect with YAL
to the YAL channel on 
Upcoming Events
-
Info This seminar offers an introduction to the thoughts and thinkers of the...
-
Info The contrast between liberty and power in the history of the...
-
Info The summer’s final Freedom University boasts lectures on the hottest...
-
Info This is an all day, family-friendly convention for freedom-minded folks in...
-
Info Taking RSVP now for a June 30th - July 1st convention.We need to secure...
Not that I'm offering an evaluation of the UN's budget priorities, but peeps gots to be paid yo. Hiring private security firms for peace keeping would also be very expensive, and their execs would be living just as large.
There is probably waste afoot, but paying for personnel is not waste by definition. Private companies would budget for personnel. And when private solutions are used, that which is waste is renamed profit.
It isn't that the people need to be paid, certainly no one would disagree that employees need to be paid.
The issue is that while the UN will probably trumpet how great they are for putting $732 million into a Haiti relief fund, they will hide the fact that only $34 million will actually help relieve Haitians.
Which makes them look far more generous than they really are
If it was a private firm, would their marketing be any more honest? I don't think so.
If unstable countries benefit from relief efforts, be that money in the pockets of citizens, food drops for the starving, troops on the ground to prevent looting, or other infrastructure improvements, the money goes to relief. Managing all that requires expertise and personnel.
Are you familiar with Charity Navigator? It's a really interesting site, actually, especially if you're thinking of donating. They conduct research on how private charities spend their money, and most private agencies which conduct this kind of emergency relief aid devote upwards of 75 or 80 percent of their budgets to actual relief, not administrative expenses (a category which includes salaries). So for instance, click on each of these four categories. When you get to their individual pages, check out the number of 3 and 4 star charities (those with high efficiency and effectiveness) in the left hand column. In each case it's an overwhelming majority. Some even use 2% or less of their incoming funds on administrative costs.
Anyway, the point is not that relief doesn't need to happen or that it should be done by volunteers. We understand that people need help and their helpers need salaries. But compared to numerous examples of more efficient private charities, these figures are absolutely ridiculous. And if a smaller percentage were spent on administrative costs, the people in need would get better assistance when they desperately need it.
I have no idea what the efficiency of the UN is compared with these kinds of charities. Most of these charities are providing a very targeted form of aid. They aren't peace keeping and they aren't managing other groups. The UN provides a meta-level role that has a value of its own. Without the peace keeping, these kinds of groups would likely refuse to participate.
Knowing that large bureaucracies are typically wasteful, I'm sure the UN could stand to lose some weight. But I think that posts/articles like these are meant to prove that the UN is a bad thing. And maybe it is. But I wouldn't conclude that from the shallow assessment given in the article.
Two-thirds, not bad! A vast improvement compared to the roughly 76% that goes to the sustainment of welfare bureaucracy at home.
3 ways to reduce the overhead:
1) Drop supplies off at the port and let roaming Haitians compete for rebuilding materials and jobs.
2) Ditch organization and the bigger picture. Generous folk can create small pools of money and send over workers and supplies to do whatever they can figure out to do on their own. No administration, no rules. Make sure your workers take guns.
3) Let private companies indenture Haitians for cheap outsourcing in exchange for rebuilding homes. With a weak government and desperation in every stomach, labor conditions are ripe for productivity.