Time for a UN Emergency Service?

[observer]

I think it was Socrates who said: " a mob is no more an Army, than a pile of building materials is a house": the apparent delays in intervening in the Haiti tragedy, with the multiplicity of agencies involved, suggests the provision of some kind of permanent Emergency Response Force permanently retained by the UN, with an holistic organisation and clear lines of command and control, like the military. So instead of ill co-ordinated reaction to such events, a fully equiped organisation immediately swings into action. The only problem is, like most things is - is there the political will to fund such a permanent integrated organisation?

[Steve the Original]

The problem with the UN is they cant make a decsion without having everyone attend an emergency meeting which takes time and then there are always those who cant decide and things get delayed again and again...the UN is a load of crap because no one person can make a quick decision.....

[observer]

Hence the need for a permanent organisation with all the equipment and logistical support, ready to swing straight into action - sort of 999 on a global scale.

[Bazj]

There was once an organisation called "International Rescue" which was named after the group from the Thunderbirds 60's kids show. What happened to them I wonder??

[observer]

Think your thinking about the kids puppet series there Baz, but it shows how sci-fi is often there ahead of the rest of us. The firemen who have gone out there, are all volunteers, it has nothing to do with Gov organisation.

[Bazj]

Think your thinking about the kids puppet series there Baz, but it shows how sci-fi is often there ahead of the rest of us. The firemen who have gone out there, are all volunteers, it has nothing to do with Gov organisation.

 

No, there was definately a real life organisation called International Rescue that used to help out in these kind of situations!

 

here you go:

 

http://www.intrescue.org/

[observer]

Yes Baz., but it's a "volunteer" organisation run on charity, bit like the Life Boat set up. The UN don't maintain even a permanent military force, but assemble them as and when. They employ lots of "admin" bods, but not many "do-ers".

[Bill]

The International Rescue organization however good their intention is just too small to be of much real help in disasters on the same scale as Haiti.

 

There?s no shortage of equipment or people and the main problem just seems to be the lack of coordination at the disaster site which I wouldn?t have thought would be an insurmountable problem on the grand scale of things.

 

Bill

[LymmParent]

When a disaster like this happens, transport and communications are down, so nobody knows exactly how bad it is, what's needed first or exactly where. That delay would still be a problem if we had a centralised response force. And it wouldn't necessarily help to have people arriving mob-handed to strain resources even further before they could start helping effectively.

 

We do actually have UNICEF (UN international Children's Emergency Fund) already.

[harry hayes]

The answer to the question is perhaps yes, but the united nations are a dead loss.

When they were first formed they had the chance to become the worlds policeman, but after Korea, they have proved to have no teeth.

 

Happy days

[observer]

Mankind has the ability to summount seemingly insummountable problems, it takes political will, funding and organisational planning etc. The problem is; we can do it when involved in wars, but not when involved in saving lives.

[inky pete]

The problem will aways be one of logistics.

 

Heavy rescue equipment and large quantities of relief supplies can only be moved around the world at the speed a cargo ship travels at - say 20mph. A couple of flights carrying 50 tons each aren't going to be of real help to hundreds of thousands of homeless or hungry people. So the majority of your aid will be travelling less than 500 miles per 24 hours.

 

Add on loading and unloading time - especially if the ports at your destination are disrupted by the disaster - and unless you have massive stocks of everything you might need prelocated at hundreds of locations close to, but undisrupted by, any potential disaster then you're always going to be talking about 4 days to a week for enough aid to make a difference to get into a disater zone.

[observer]

That's why I'm advocating a "permanent" UN military force, capable of policing the globe and of delivering expertise and equipment aid in emergencies. Strategically placed shipping, with heavy equipment, hospital ships etc could be located closer to risk areas and with a military style command and control organisation be moved rapidly into action.

[asperity]

Hopelessly unwieldy and excessively expensive I'm afraid.

[observer]

The assetts are already available in National Armies and Navies; it's the fact they are not under a unified command that they are unwieldy at the moment. As for cost effectiveness; that depends on the frequency of such disasters. In war we can shift men and heavy equipment half way round the world EG; Falklands campaign - so why not invest the same energy in saving lives?

[asperity]

Thats what happens now!!! As for having all these ships and equipment at strategic places, the best places for keeping and maintaining the equipment are unlikely to be out of the way and poverty stricken countries like Haiti. Hospital ships? Fully manned with medical staff just sitting and waiting for something to happen, possibly for years? I think not. A nice idea in Utopia but not in the real world.

[Eagle]

As for cost effectiveness; that depends on the frequency of such disasters.

 

Strange term to use for disasters, isn't it all cost?

[observer]

Cost effectivness is the same arguement that will apply to the issue of "snowbound Britain"; it could be possible with investment in the right equipment, like Finland, to keep highways clear in such events (est cost ?1.5billion, then ?.5 billion per year therafter); the question then is, for a 1 in 30 year event (assuming that to be the case) - is it worth that level of investment? Likewise, with global catastrophes; do they occure every year or every ten years - if considered frequent, would such investment in an ever ready response or indeed in prevention (like earthquake proofing buildings) be money well spent - or should we just take the cynical view, that these are "acts of God", and the loss of life is just a manifestation of some great spiritual plan?!

[asperity]

Well it seems that the much hated US is the one country that is prepared to put its resources to good and immediate use while the rest of the world (specially the EUSSR) prefers to hold meetings to discuss the situation.

 

http://tinyurl.com/ydxnn7b

 

A little bit of light reading

[LymmParent]

Yes, Asp. I fear they have broken with global regulations and appointed a leader capable of independent thought and direct action. Who knows where that will end!!

[asperity]

Actually Obama is only following the example of his predecessors who generally have offered assistance to the rest of the world with little or no thanks. George W was the man who sent the assistance to the far east when the tsunami struck

[Lt Kije]

I think you will find individual EU Countries have done quite a bit

[asperity]

Which is what the EUReferendum article said. Individual nation states do more to solve the problem than the UN/EU talking shop.

[observer]

Well, it's apparent now, that law and order are at risk of collapse, as desperation leads to anarchy - the UN should take over the running of the Country and impose marshal law; a parallel administrive and operational infrastructure needs to be put in place with a single Commander, with clear lines of communication.

[Lt Kije]

Can the EU act on these matters, or is it still up to the individual Countries