.jpg)
THE recent decision by the United Nations to invoke “legal immunity” in support of its rejection of compensation claims by thousands of Haitian cholera victims poses an immediate challenge for the 15-member Caribbean Community (CARICOM).
It’s of particular significance – coincidental or not – that the UN’s announcement of its rejection of damage claims on behalf of more than 5,000 Haitian cholera victims, was made public within two days AFTER President Michel Martelly had hosted the first summit of CARICOM Heads of Government on February 18-19.
On February 21, as reported by international news agencies, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, telephoned President Martelly to inform him of the circumstances for rejecting the claims. At the same time, he gave the assurance that the world body remained “committed” to providing and improving water and sanitation facilities.
Independent observers, conscious of the various vital roles being played by the UN to aid suffering humanity, would, however, readily share the hurt of Haitians in general, and the cholera victims in particular, on learning that the compensation claims had been filed since November 2011 by the Boston-based human rights organisation, Institute for Justice and Democracy.
So why did it take some 15 months for the UN to reject the submitted claims on behalf of the more than 5,000 victims of that dreaded disease that thrive in poor and poverty-stricken societies such as Haiti; and which Caribbean nation’s water and sanitation challenges had become even more acute with the nightmare earthquake’s devastation in January 2010?
Legal luminaries and other myriad of experts in the employ of the world body must not overlook the fact that the cholera epidemic in Haiti had its origin, as documented, via peace-keeping soldiers from Nepal, a country where the disease is reported to be endemic.
The epidemic exploded in Haiti as the country was engaged in the early phase of the monumental challenge of post-earthquake rehabilitation, and approximately 8,000 Haitians had been killed by cholera and some 594,000 infected with reports of a minimum of 200 new cases daily.
In a sharply condemnatory editorial of the UN’s decision to seek cover under “legal immunity” for rejecting the claims of cholera victims and their families, Britain’s “The Economist” lamented:
“If a company dumped lethal waste into a river in the United States it would be sued for negligence. But there is no legal mechanism for redress against the UN. Immunity protects it from most courts….Although its agreement with Haiti provides for a claims commission to hear grievances that commission has never been set up…”
We await CARICOM’s response to this quite disturbing rejection by the UN of the damage claims of Haitian cholera victims. (Published, courtesy yesterday’s Barbados “Daily Nation”).
It’s of particular significance – coincidental or not – that the UN’s announcement of its rejection of damage claims on behalf of more than 5,000 Haitian cholera victims, was made public within two days AFTER President Michel Martelly had hosted the first summit of CARICOM Heads of Government on February 18-19.
On February 21, as reported by international news agencies, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, telephoned President Martelly to inform him of the circumstances for rejecting the claims. At the same time, he gave the assurance that the world body remained “committed” to providing and improving water and sanitation facilities.
Independent observers, conscious of the various vital roles being played by the UN to aid suffering humanity, would, however, readily share the hurt of Haitians in general, and the cholera victims in particular, on learning that the compensation claims had been filed since November 2011 by the Boston-based human rights organisation, Institute for Justice and Democracy.
So why did it take some 15 months for the UN to reject the submitted claims on behalf of the more than 5,000 victims of that dreaded disease that thrive in poor and poverty-stricken societies such as Haiti; and which Caribbean nation’s water and sanitation challenges had become even more acute with the nightmare earthquake’s devastation in January 2010?
Legal luminaries and other myriad of experts in the employ of the world body must not overlook the fact that the cholera epidemic in Haiti had its origin, as documented, via peace-keeping soldiers from Nepal, a country where the disease is reported to be endemic.
The epidemic exploded in Haiti as the country was engaged in the early phase of the monumental challenge of post-earthquake rehabilitation, and approximately 8,000 Haitians had been killed by cholera and some 594,000 infected with reports of a minimum of 200 new cases daily.
In a sharply condemnatory editorial of the UN’s decision to seek cover under “legal immunity” for rejecting the claims of cholera victims and their families, Britain’s “The Economist” lamented:
“If a company dumped lethal waste into a river in the United States it would be sued for negligence. But there is no legal mechanism for redress against the UN. Immunity protects it from most courts….Although its agreement with Haiti provides for a claims commission to hear grievances that commission has never been set up…”
We await CARICOM’s response to this quite disturbing rejection by the UN of the damage claims of Haitian cholera victims. (Published, courtesy yesterday’s Barbados “Daily Nation”).
