Giuseppe Sandro Mela.
La scorsa settima avrebbe dovuti tenersi il World Humanitarian Summit, indetto dalle Nazioni Unite.
Di tutti i capi di stato invitati a partecipare si è presentata soltanto la Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel. più per chiedere che per dare qualcosa.
«Many world leaders, including those who run most of the richest countries, are choosing to look the other way»
«They are more interested in barricading their nations from the fallout of conflict than in investing in peacekeeping and stability»
«It’s disappointing that some world leaders could not be here, especially from the G-7 countries»
«Humanitarian aid, including food and basic medicine, often reaches besieged communities too late, if at all. That means that people are dying daily from malnutrition and a lack of basic health care»
«The international community spends roughly $25 billion a year on humanitarian aid, which seems a lot but in fact is $15 billion less than relief agencies need to do the job properly»
«Among the agencies most in need of repair and rejuvenation is the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which administers the refugee resettlement process and has been underfinanced for years»
* * * * * * *
Cerchiamo di fare un minimo di chiarezza in un settore spesso non molto conosciuto.
I conflitti locali sono spesso molto sanguinosi e provocano severe migrazioni di gente in cerca di un minimo di sicurezza per la propria vita.
Se esiste quindi il problema di assicurar loro un minimo vitale, anche al di sotto dell’umana dignità, si staglia ben più importante ed urgente quello di rimuovere le cause dei conflitti.
Troppo spesso piangono sui rifugiati proprio coloro che hanno fatto di tutto per cacciarli in tale situazione. E più che piangere sui profughi, piangono su quanto poco possano lucrarci sopra.
Dovrebbe esserci un limite anche all’umana ipocrisia.
Le organizzazioni delle Nazioni Unite sono chiacchierate e chiccherabili.
Sono stracolme di personale ottimamente pagato, che spende il denaro di dotazione con grande larghezza incurante dei risultati poi conseguiti. Dire che siano inefficienti sarebbe far loro un grande complimento: le Nazioni Unite sono strumento per piazzare raccomandati inerti e finanziare amici degli amici.
Non a caso i loro bilanci non sono pubblici.
Gridano vendetta a Dio, ai Santi, agli uomini.
Se gli stipendi dei dipendenti assorbono il 42.45% del budget del’UN, l’Unops arriva al 52.07%. L’Upu si arrangia con il 57.18%. Stipendifici.
Una sintesi fu pubblicata in passato dal Sole 24 Ore, che per motivi redazionali dipinse le Nazioni Unite come un ricettacolo di pii asceti che osservano strettamente il vincolo del voto di povertà. Poi, lo stesso giornale, ha pubblicato un sintetico report numerico, per altro incompleto, da cui si evince che i dipendenti delle UN sono poveracci che stentano a campare con solo un centinaio di migliaia di dollari all’anno. Stipendio che per i giornalisti di quella testata sono sicuramente da fame nera.
Attenzione: stipendio nudo e crudo, cui si deve aggiungere ogni ben di Dio. Lo chiamano benefit.
Un esempio per tutti: la Fao.
Il professionale medio della Fao percepisce un emolumento di 103,264 dollari l’anno, cui si devono aggiungere tutti i benefit. Casa, vitto, vestiario, hobbies, automobile, e, si dice, escort di grande avvenenza ed esperienza. Refusione spese a piè di lista: manco a dirlo, alberghi ad almeno cinque stelle.
«The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO; French: Organisation des Nations unies pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture, Italian: Organizzazione delle Nazioni Unite per l’Alimentazione e l’Agricoltura) is an agency of the United Nations that leads international efforts to defeat hunger. Serving both developed and developing countries, FAO acts as a neutral forum where all nations meet as equals to negotiate agreements and debate policy.»
«The FAO regular budget for 2012–2013 biennium is US$1,005.6 million. The voluntary contributions provided by members and other partners support mechanical and emergency (including rehabilitation) assistance to governments for clearly defined purposes linked to the results framework, as well as direct support to FAO’s core work. The voluntary contributions are expected to reach approximately US$1.4 billion in 2012–2013.» [Fonte]
«Early in 1989, the organisation came under attack from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. The Foundation wrote that “The sad fact is that the FAO has become essentially irrelevant in combating hunger. A bloated bureaucracy known for the mediocrity of its work and the inefficiency of its staff the FAO in recent years has become increasingly politicised”» [Fonte]
«Edouard Saouma, the Director-General of FAO, was also criticised in Graham Hancock’s book Lords of Poverty, published in 1989. Mention is made of Saouma’s ‘fat pay packet’, his ‘autocratic’ management style, and his ‘control over the flow of public information’. Hancock concluded that “One gets the sense from all of this of an institution that has lost its way, departed from its purely humanitarian and developmental mandate, become confused about its place in the world – about exactly what it is doing, and why”. Despite the criticism, Edouard Saouma served as DG for three consecutive terms from 1976 to 1993.» [Fonte]
«The UN Food and Agriculture Organization: Promoting World Hunger» [Fonte]
«La Fao serve a sfamare i suoi dipendenti e consulenti»
* * * * * * *
Rileggiamoci con cura questa frase:
«A bloated bureaucracy known for the mediocrity of its work and the inefficiency of its staff the FAO in recent years has become increasingly politicised»
Non abbiamo trattato dell’United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees solo per pudore: avremmo dovuto usare parole molto più severe.
→ New York Times. 2016-05-29. As Rich Nations Turn Their Backs
The world is witnessing the largest exodus of refugees in generations, spawned by armed conflicts in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia. But “witnessing” is perhaps the wrong word. Many world leaders, including those who run most of the richest countries, are choosing to look the other way. They are more interested in barricading their nations from the fallout of conflict than in investing in peacekeeping and stability.
This willful neglect was on display last week at the inaugural World Humanitarian Summit, convened to face the needs of the world’s most vulnerable people. Most heads of state from the richest nations — including the United States — didn’t bother to show up, drawing a rebuke from the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon.
“It’s disappointing that some world leaders could not be here, especially from the G-7 countries,” he said at a news conference on Tuesday. “We have reached a level of human suffering without parallel since the founding of the United Nations” 70 years ago.
Even if some of the wars can be brought to an end, it will take decades and billions of dollars to meaningfully address their ramifications. The challenge of doing so will be compounded by the expanding needs of people displaced by climate change and natural disasters.
“Today, we do not yet have a functioning humanitarian aid system,” Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, the only head of state of a member of the Group of 7 nations to attend, said at the conference, which was held in Istanbul. “Very often pledges are made, but the money does not reach where it is most needed.”
The international community spends roughly $25 billion a year on humanitarian aid, which seems a lot but in fact is $15 billion less than relief agencies need to do the job properly.
Among the agencies most in need of repair and rejuvenation is the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which administers the refugee resettlement process and has been underfinanced for years. This has forced millions of refugees to put their fates in the hands of unscrupulous smugglers and set out on perilous journeys in search of a new start. According to the agency, there are more than 59.5 million forcibly displaced people, including roughly 19.5 million refugees.
Medical professionals continue to perform heroic work in war zones, even as they have come under attack routinely, sometimes deliberately. Doctors Without Borders, which runs battlefield hospitals, boycotted the summit meeting, calling it a “fig-leaf of good intentions.”
Humanitarian aid, including food and basic medicine, often reaches besieged communities too late, if at all. That means that people are dying daily from malnutrition and a lack of basic health care.
Even in parts of the world that are comparatively stable, there is widespread disregard for the institutions that investigate human rights abuses. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which investigates abuses in Latin America, announced last week that it would soon have to lay off half of its staff as a result of chronic budget shortages.
The meeting’s organizers issued a series of objectives on Tuesday at the end of the two-day event. They called on leaders to do more to prevent war, uphold human rights norms and distribute the burden of resettling refugees more equitably. These are all sensible aspirations, but unless world leaders make binding commitments to carry them out they’re unlikely to be met.
It may be politically expedient to propose fortifying barriers and tightening immigration controls in an effort to keep the tide of suffering and despair at bay. But doing so will only raise the long-term cost of dealing with crises that are metastasizing each year.