Congo Cuisine

[Mycroft]

U.N.: Congo militias grilled victims alive

EDDY ISANGO

Associated Press

KINSHASA, Congo - Militiamen grilled bodies on a spit and boiled two girls alive as their mother watched, U.N. peacekeepers charged Wednesday, adding cannibalism to a list of atrocities allegedly carried out by one of the tribal groups fighting in northeast Congo.

The report came as a key U.N. official said the ongoing violence in Congo, claiming thousands of lives every month, has made it the site of the world's worst humanitarian crisis.

The commander of U.N. forces in Congo, Gen. Patrick Cammaert, presented a report on abuses allegedly committed by the Patriotic Resistance Front of Ituri.

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/politics/11154568.htm

Don't we have UN forces in Congo? What are they doing if not putting a stop to this?

 

[Grammatron]

I don't have anything to add but just want to echo the question. Why aren't UN forces doing anything?

 

[geni]

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/politics/11154568.htm

Don't we have UN forces in Congo? What are they doing if not putting a stop to this?

Faceing reality? The DRC is huge. The terrian is less than brilliant for militry opperations. In short they do not have the rescourcces to control the place. This has been going for a while (mostly targeted at the pygmies due to local belifes) by DRC standards this is pretty minor.

 

[Cleon]

I don't have anything to add but just want to echo the question. Why aren't UN forces doing anything?

At the risk of sounding more pro-UN than I really feel, let me put it this way:

Don't we have US forced in Iraq? Why aren't they doing anything to stop the beheadings?


Lack of perfect results is not necessarily the result of lack of effort.

 

[Grammatron]

At the risk of sounding more pro-UN than I really feel, let me put it this way:

Don't we have US forced in Iraq? Why aren't they doing anything to stop the beheadings?


Lack of perfect results is not necessarily the result of lack of effort.

I see, so they are doing something, perhaps I posted in haste when I shouldn't have. The severity of the information presented clouded my judgement.

Certainly I would like to see more done, especially in light of it being labled "world's worst humanitarian crisis."

 

[RussDill]

I don't have anything to add but just want to echo the question. Why aren't UN forces doing anything?

The UN has a different ROE than other forces. I don't think they are permitted to engage if the lives of civilians are endangered unless ordered to do so.

 

[geni]

The UN has a different ROE than other forces. I don't think they are permitted to engage if the lives of civilians are endangered unless ordered to do so.

Depends on the deployment.

 

[RussDill]

Depends on the deployment.

Would it be safe to say, that given similar deployments, the UN has a more restritive ROE than other armies of the world?

 

[Jocko]

Would it be safe to say, that given similar deployments, the UN has a more restritive ROE than other armies of the world?

Depends on whether you mean "rules of engagement" or "run off elsewhere."

 

[a_unique_person]

Would it be safe to say, that given similar deployments, the UN has a more restritive ROE than other armies of the world?

I think it is as much a matter of numbers as anything else. The UN does place troops in places in various roles.

Eg, UN monitors are just that, troops armed to defend themselves, placed in a dangerous situation to let the world know what is going on. If the world chooses to ignore the message, that is not a fault of the UN. IIRC, some UN troops were recently killed in the DRC, the numbers present are barely enough to keep themselves safe.

Now, if the members of the UN take heed of the messages coming out of the DRC, I am all in favour of doing something to try to fix what has been an ongoing disaster for over 200 years, IIRC.

If they choose to take the Rwanda option, and ignore the messages, then that is their choice.

 

[a_unique_person]

Depends on whether you mean "rules of engagement" or "run off elsewhere."

Nice smarts ### comment on people who are literally risking their lives in the place. If the US or any other country wants to commit troops to the UN effort, feel free.

 

[BPSCG]

Eg, UN monitors are just that, troops armed to defend themselves, placed in a dangerous situation to let the world know what is going on.

So they're essentially, armed tattletales...?

I asked this question a year or so ago: Has the UN ever stopped anyone, anywhere, from killing anyone?

If the world chooses to ignore the message, that is not a fault of the UN. IIRC, some UN troops were recently killed in the DRC, the numbers present are barely enough to keep themselves safe.

Then what's the point of their being there? They don't stop anyone from killing anyone, and potentially add to the death toll by being targets themselves. Might as well stay home.

Now, if the members of the UN take heed of the messages coming out of the DRC, I am all in favour of doing something...

Such as?

 

[a_unique_person]

So they're essentially, armed tattletales...?

I asked this question a year or so ago: Has the UN ever stopped anyone, anywhere, from killing anyone?
Then what's the point of their being there? They don't stop anyone from killing anyone, and potentially add to the death toll by being targets themselves. Might as well stay home.
Such as?

There is a whole website that lists the projects of the UN, it is huge, just go and look at it. There have been many successful peacekeeping operations undertaken under the auspices of the UN, many not so successful.

The point of at least being there is that we, the rest of the world know what is going on. No one can plead ignorance. There is 200 years history of disaster in the DRC. Sooner of later, some action may be taken to remedy that. It will be because the UN is given the resources to do that by it's members. Remember, the UN, by itself, does not have any forces. They are just 'rebadged' forces from other member countries. If, for example, Australian were to announce that it wants to help out in the the DRC, I would be all for it, provided that a meaningful action could be made, that was not just going to result in the meaningless deaths of Australian troops.

 

[BPSCG]

There is a whole website that lists the projects of the UN, it is huge, just go and look at it.

A link might be nice...

The point of at least being there is that we, the rest of the world know what is going on. No one can plead ignorance.

The same can be said for Iraq. Fat load of difference it made to the UN.

There is 200 years history of disaster in the DRC. Sooner of later, some action may be taken to remedy that. It will be because the UN is given the resources to do that by it's members.

My guess is it will be later, not sooner. In fact, my guess is, it will be a very, very cold day in Hell.

If, for example, Australian were to announce that it wants to help out in the the DRC, I would be all for it, provided that a meaningful action could be made, that was not just going to result in the meaningless deaths of Australian troops.

So you would be in favor of a military solution, under some circumstances?

 

[a_unique_person]

A link might be nice...

http://www.un.org/peace/#

The same can be said for Iraq. Fat load of difference it made to the UN.

The members of the co-alition of willing are all members of the UN. Nothing has been stopping them from organising, under the auspices of the UN, some sort of action to halt the disaster in progress.

My guess is it will be later, not sooner. In fact, my guess is, it will be a very, very cold day in Hell.

A sad indictment on the members of the UN, I agree entirely.

So you would be in favor of a military solution, under some circumstances?

Always have been.

 

[punchdrunk]

So they're essentially, armed tattletales...?

I asked this question a year or so ago: Has the UN ever stopped anyone, anywhere, from killing anyone?

Beeps, take a look at the following from Rand.org (it's a PDF file):
The UN's Role in Nation-building: From the Congo to Iraq

It's seems to me to be a fairly straightforward document on the success and failures of UN peacekeeping missions, with comparison to US-led missions. In short, it makes the case for UN-led missions in low-profile, small-footprint approaches.

In regard to your question:

The early post–Cold War UN-led operations in Namibia, Cambodia, El Salvador, and Mozambique followed a similar pattern. The international community, with U.S. and Soviet backing, first brokered a peace accord. The Security Council then dispatched a UN peacekeeping force to oversee its implementation. In each case, the UN mission’s responsibilities included initiating an expeditious process of disarmament, demobilization, and Executive Summary xvii reintegration; encouraging political reconciliation; holding democratic elections; and overseeing the inauguration of a new national government. Operations in each of these countries were greatly facilitated by war-weary populations, great-power support, and the cooperation of neighboring countries. The United Nations became adept at overseeing the disarmament and demobilization of willing parties. The reintegration of former combatants was everywhere more problematic, for nowhere did the international community provide the necessary resources. Economic growth accelerated in most cases, largely as a result of the cessation of fighting. Peace, growth, and democracy were often accompanied by an increase in common crime, as old repressive security services were dismantled and demobilized former combatants were left without a livelihood.

All four of these operations culminated in reasonably free and fair elections. All four resulted in sustained periods of civil peace that endured after the United Nations withdrawal. Cambodia enjoyed the least successful democratic transformation and experienced the greatest renewal of civil strife, although at nothing like the level that preceded the UN intervention. Cambodia was also the first instance in which the United Nations became responsible for helping govern a state in transition from conflict to peace and democracy. The United Nations was ill prepared to assume such a role. For its part, the government of Cambodia, although it had agreed to UN administrative oversight as part of the peace accord, was unwilling to cede effective authority. As a result, UN control over Cambodia’s civil administration was largely nominal.

Other quotes:

UN operations have almost always been undermanned and under-resourced. This is not because UN managers believe smaller is better, although some do. It is because member states are rarely willing to commit the manpower or the money any prudent military commander would desire. As a result, small and weak UN forces are routinely deployed into what they hope, on the basis of best-case assumptions, will prove to be postconflict situations. Where such assumptions prove ill founded, UN forces have had to be reinforced, withdrawn, or, in extreme cases, rescued.

The document concludes that UN peacekeeping missions have been slightly more successful than US-led missions:

There are three explanations for the better UN success rate. The first is that a different selection of cases would produce a different result. The second is that the U.S. cases are intrinsically more difficult. The third is that the United Nations has done a better job of learning from its mistakes than has the United States. Throughout the 1990s, the United States became steadily better at nation-building. The Haitian operation was better managed than Somalia, Bosnia better than Haiti, and Kosovo better than Bosnia. The U.S. learning curve was not sustained into the current decade. The administration that took office in 2001 initially disdained nation-building as an unsuitable activity for U.S. forces. When compelled to engage in such missions, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq, the administration sought to break with the strategies and institutional responses that had been honed throughout the 1990s to deal with these challenges.

 

[BPSCG]

Beeps, take a look at the following from Rand.org (it's a PDF file):

I've suddenly gotten a lot busier at work the last few days, so I'm going to have to content myself with your excerpts. But to get to the summary:

There are three explanations for the better UN success rate.

I think it's arguable whether or not the UN has had "better success," but I'll let that pass for the moment.

The first is that a different selection of cases would produce a different result. The second is that the U.S. cases are intrinsically more difficult.

Another way of saying that the US takes on the cases that the rest of the world is too cowardly or cheap to deal with, where the rest of the world doesn't want to risk blood or treasure against someone who's a true danger to others. Say what you want about the UN interventions, none of them involved dealing with countries that were exporting terror around the world like Iraq was. None of them had twice invaded their neighbors in the previous decade, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives. And, as your quote points out...

Operations in each of these countries were greatly facilitated by war-weary populations, great-power support, and the cooperation of neighboring countries.

...which might have made the US job in Iraq a little easier.

The third is that the United Nations has done a better job of learning from its mistakes than has the United States. Throughout the 1990s, the United States became steadily better at nation-building. The Haitian operation was better managed than Somalia, Bosnia better than Haiti, and Kosovo better than Bosnia. The U.S. learning curve was not sustained into the current decade. The administration that took offe in 2001 initially disdained nation-building as an unsuitable activity for U.S. forces. When compelled to engage in such missions, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq, the administration sought to break with the strategies and institutional responses that had been honed throughout the 1990s to deal with these challenges.

Cosidering the lack of support from the UN, and the intrinsic difficulties many orders of magnitude greater than the UN's endeavors, it boggles the mind to read that "the United Nations has done a better job of learning from its mistakes than has the United States."

It's seems to me to be a fairly straightforward document on the success and failures of UN peacekeeping missions, with comparison to US-led missions. In short, it makes the case for UN-led missions in low-profile, small-footprint approaches.

In other words, don't do anything that would be too difficult or dangerous.

The early post–Cold War UN-led operations in Namibia, Cambodia, El Salvador, and Mozambique followed a similar pattern. The international community, with U.S. and Soviet backing, first brokered a peace accord.

That's pretty disingenuous, at least in the case of Cambodia. Pol Pot's vicious regime was overthrown by a unilateral invasion from Viet Nam. The UN did nothing to stop Pol Pot while he was slaughtering hundreds of thousands of his own people.

The United Nations became adept at overseeing the disarmament and demobilization of willing parties.

"You don't want to fight any more? Good, now we'll come and help you."

Note there's still no UN presence in Iraq. Why? Because when terrorists killed some UN workers last year (or was it 2003? it gets hazy), the UN pulled out - and says it won't come back until the situation stabilizes (and who do they want to have doing the "stablizing", I wonder?)

In sum:

• The UN will take on the easy jobs;
• When the easy jobs turn dirty or costly, the UN leaves;
• The US takes the hard jobs, with, at best, grudging support from the UN;
• The UN pats itself on the back for a job well done, while criticizing the US for not doing a perfect job on the hard cases;
• When the going gets tough, the UN gets out of Dodge.

 

[a_unique_person]

Note there's still no UN presence in Iraq. Why? Because when terrorists killed some UN workers last year (or was it 2003? it gets hazy), the UN pulled out - and says it won't come back until the situation stabilizes (and who do they want to have doing the "stablizing", I wonder?)

That is just a disgraceful statement.

 

[punchdrunk]

I've suddenly gotten a lot busier at work the last few days, so I'm going to have to content myself with your excerpts.

I think it's an interesting document so you might keep it in mind if you get free time later on.

Another way of saying that the US takes on the cases that the rest of the world is too cowardly or cheap to deal with, where the rest of the world doesn't want to risk blood or treasure against someone who's a true danger to others. Say what you want about the UN interventions, none of them involved dealing with countries that were exporting terror around the world like Iraq was. None of them had twice invaded their neighbors in the previous decade, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.

As the document points out, the UN has had problems with large-scale peacekeeping missions partly because of lack of support from its members, including the US. And it works both ways: the UN takes on cases that the US is loath to enter because there is no foreign policy interest. In humanitarian terms, some would consider this cowardly.

And I don't think your characterizations of the US as opposed to the UN are fair. If the US is so brave, why not take on China? After all, Sharansky makes a good case why any non-democratic state is a threat to democracies like the US, so it's presumably in our best interest. Why not take on Saudi Arabia, the real exporters of terrorism (you know, those 19 guys who slaughtered 3000+ American citizens)? Where's the rectitude in coddling that despotic monarchy? It's all about resources. The US has simply much more than the UN. It can do more, and it can do it better.

Should the UN get more resources from the US - considering some of the UN's despotic members, its lack of enforceable power, that it sometimes goes against the US' best interests, and the corruption - is another question.

Cosidering the lack of support from the UN, and the intrinsic difficulties many orders of magnitude greater than the UN's endeavors, it boggles the mind to read that "the United Nations has done a better job of learning from its mistakes than has the United States."

Again, from the article:

Following the loss of 18 U.S. soldiers in Somalia in 1993, the United States took great precautions through the rest of the decade to avoid casualties. The United Nations was slightly less risk averse. Through the end of the 1990s, casualty rates in UN-led operations were consequently a little higher than American. In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, American sensitivity to casualties diminished. At the same time, the United States abandoned its strategy of deploying overwhelming force at the outset of nation-building operations. Significantly lower force-topopulation ratios in Afghanistan and Iraq than in Bosnia or Kosovo have been accompanied by much higher casualty levels.

That's pretty disingenuous, at least in the case of Cambodia. Pol Pot's vicious regime was overthrown by a unilateral invasion from Viet Nam. The UN did nothing to stop Pol Pot while he was slaughtering hundreds of thousands of his own people.

And what did the US do?

 

[Skeptic]

At the risk of sounding more pro-UN than I really feel, let me put it this way:

Don't we have US forced in Iraq? Why aren't they doing anything to stop the beheadings?


Lack of perfect results is not necessarily the result of lack of effort.

Quite true. But while it CAN be shown that the US is doing a lot (if not perfectly) about the insurgents, can you show anything remotely similar with the UN troops?