Via my own blog Cholera in Haiti, my comments on a Washington Post editorial: A scandal of sexual abuse mars the UN’s exit from Haiti. Click or tap through to read the full editorial.
First, let's recollect that the elected president was overthrown with the tacit acceptance of the United States government. MINUSTAH was then created and imposed as "peacekeepers" in a country with no war, almost certainly at the behest of the United States government.
In earlier times, the US simply sent in the Marines to occupy Haiti when it became annoying. This was no longer politically acceptable, so the UN was stuck with the chore of rounding up peacekeepers as cheap outsourced cops.
Many poor countries are happy to provide such peacekeepers, because the UN will pay those countries to rent some of their soldiers. This eases the burden of military spending for such countries, and gives their boys a foreign holiday (and a chance to get laid).
I don't entirely blame the UN for cholera and sexual abuse in Haiti; the US supplies most of its budget, so the UN does as it's told. But in this case, the UN was dragged into a moral quagmire: it sickened and killed the people it was supposed to protect, and then it (and its agent the World Health Organization) had to deny responsibility for the better part of a decade, because its funders won't give it the money to make restitution.
It has been a moral and ethical disaster for the people in the UN who have been involved—from Ban Ki-Moon and Dr. Margaret Chan on down to the bureaucrats on the ground. And that includes us, who pay the taxes for our countries' membership in the UN, and then forget what's being done with our money.