Feckless--Part II

Last month I published my post entitled Feckless addressing, of all things, the United Nations. In that writing I mentioned that the dictionary gave this definition for the word Feckless:

Feckless (adj.) 1. Lacking purpose or vitality; feeble or ineffective.

2. Careless and irresponsible

Well, not to appear to be flogging the proverbial dead horse, but I have yet another problem with the UN this evening. I seems that the UN has decided that it cannot be responsible for observing the Iraqi elections this month.

Further, they waited until 10 days before the election to make the announcement. Where is my passport and shotgun, looks like I’ve got to make a trip next week…

Listen to this lame crap:

“United Nations diplomats are warning that Iraq's first democratic election will be held without wide-scale international monitoring.

The UN says it cannot observe the January 30 poll because it played a role in setting up the elections, and no other international organisation has stepped in to offer assistance.”

My response to these two sentences is: a) so what and b) since when?

So what if wide scale international monitoring isn’t available? I suggest that if the Iraqi people and the interim governing council are happy with the outcome, it’s none of the UN’s damn business how the election was handled. Remember that the UN was on Saddam’s payroll for 8 or 10 years and they didn’t seem to have a problem with him being an un-elected leader?

Since when has the UN excluded themselves from being the official international busybodies in every other countries’ business including elections over the past 60 years? And what do they mean when they say that they can't monitor the elections because they set them up? Are the elections rigged and they can't monitor them because they know where to look for evidence of hanky-panky or what.

They are only now making this belated “announcement” because they are pissed off that the US wouldn’t delay the election and they can’t control the process to their satisfaction.

What other international organization would they like to step in in their absence? The NBA, the FAA, NASA, the EU, or perhaps the NCAA? Maybe they would rather have a soccer game or a cricket match rather than an election.

“The absence of international monitoring could undermine confidence in the results of elections that are already threatened by widespread voter intimidation and the boycott of Sunni Arab parties.

But one UN official said there would be sufficient scrutiny by local party observers and domestic non-governmental organisations. “It's not essential to have international election observers,” said Carlos Valenzuela, the UN's Iraq election expert. A Canada-based umbrella group of electoral experts, the International Mission for Iraqi Elections, was established in December to help assess the process, but insists it is not a monitoring mission.

“Monitoring is a big problem. There won't be any international observation mechanism,” said one UN diplomat. “The UN is not willing. No one is willing. No one wants to send their people there.”

Even the number of Iraqis expected to oversee the process was “less than expected or needed”.

The diplomat described IMIE as a “last-minute” initiative, which will send experts to Jordan and Baghdad's green zone “to provide a kind of out-of-country monitoring mission”.
Another claimed it would provide helpful scrutiny of “organisational points of the process”, but added: “You can't expect international monitors to be located across the country.”

IMIE refuses to answer press enquiries about its job. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, its head, refuses interview requests, and journalists are referred to the body's website.

This Canada based International Mission for Iraqi Elections has the distinct odor of smelly socks and sweaty feet, in my opinion. It is so appropriate that their leader is named Jean-Pierre. Can you say France West?

The IMIE (as in Imie, Meemie , Mimie, Moe?), has spent all of their time running around outside of Iraq, avoiding car bombs, looking for so-called Iraqi nationals to vote. What I want to know is, how do you tell an Iraqi from a Saudi? Do they have a class ring, a driver’s license, or a fraternity jersey, or maybe a tattoo that gives them away on a positive ID basis? What are the odds that the Iraqi nationals that the IMIE does find and positively identify are actually displaced Saddam supporters who had enough money to get the hell out to avoid the fighting and are just itching for the opportunity to move back in country and pick up where they left off two years ago?

Again, all that the UN has proven here is how absolutely useless they are in achieving a basic mission that they claim to be experts at. This election has been scheduled for over six months and the UN can’t recruit and train enough indigenous personnel to accomplish what they claim is a vital mission.

Other than bitching and complaining and fund raising, what the heck can the UN actually be counted on to accomplish?

Just wondering….