UN Needs Troops to Prevent Disaster in Congo

[a_unique_person]

UN urges more DR Congo troops


Tens of thousands have fled the fighting
The United Nations is to ask other countries to follow France's example in offering to send peacekeepers to the north-eastern Ituri region of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Heavy fighting is under way there between rival ethnic militias seeking control of the town of Bunia, the regional capital, where the UN fears a bloodbath.

The UN has about 700 troops, mainly Uruguayans, based in the town where some 10,000 residents are seeking shelter at the UN compound as street battles rage.

Who will provide them? Urugauy would not be the sort of place that could provide much more than it's current committment.

 

[aerocontrols]

I support sending US troops, if we're going to overthrow the current dictatorship.

 

[corplinx]

shouldnt it be:

to prevent _yet another_ disaster

 

[Kodiak]

Who will provide them?

I think that, in an attempt to reconcile with those UN member-nation's that ousted Saddam, France, Germany and Russia should provide the funds, troops, and material for this operation.

 

[Genghis Pwn]

Does France have UN Security Council approval for this military adventure into a sovereign country?

 

[Kodiak]

Does France have UN Security Council approval for this military adventure into a sovereign country?

Unnecessary...

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: UN Needs Troops to Prevent Disaster in Congo

I think that, in an attempt to reconcile with those UN member-nation's that ousted Saddam, France, Germany and Russia should provide the funds, troops, and material for this operation.

Germany, due to relatively recent war, has not been to keen to be too militarily active. France and Russia, I believe, have been making troops available for UN use.

However, I do agree, they should be putting in a bit more.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/ appears to be an excellent site.

The US, however, as the most powerful military country in the world, should be putting in a proportional amount. The US, however, except for when it runs the show, such as in Korea, does not appear to be prepared to take a partnership role in such operations.

US Policy on UN Peacekeeping
This page deals with US policies that affect UN peacekeeping. The UN's difficulties in funding its operations and compensating troop-contributing countries arise in large part from the US refusal to pay its share of the peacekeeping budget. Since the US is responsible for the largest portion of the budget and has extensive military resources, its policies towards the UN are crucial to the organization's success.

Strengthening the Peacekeepers
Washington Post
September 6, 2000

At the end of their extravagant millennium summit on Friday, the United Nations and its member states will issue dreamy calls to defeat poverty, illiteracy and AIDS. But a more practical statement may emerge today from the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council.

The P5 are due to consider ways of strengthening the United Nations' peacekeeping efforts, which have expanded rapidly since the end of the Cold War, not always successfully. In Bosnia, Rwanda and, most recently, Sierra Leone, the United Nations has sent too few people too late with too weak a mandate. As a result, many thousands of civilians who might have been saved were instead slaughtered.

Last month an expert commission appointed by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan listed the causes of these setbacks. It proposed that the United Nations' tiny peacekeeping staff in New York be strengthened: At present there are only 32 military officers at U.N. headquarters to oversee 27,000 troops deployed in 14 operations around the world, and only nine police specialists to supervise 9,000 police officers. An expanded staff might make it possible to get troops into trouble spots faster and to anticipate necessary deployments earlier.

So, there are 27,000 troops deployed around the world in current UN peacekeeping operations.

When confronted with a humanitarian crisis, the world's leading nations often can't bring themselves to say that they don't care but can't bring themselves to commit sufficient resources to make muscular U.N. action possible either. So they pretend that the thugs really want peace and that a small, lightly armed force can preserve that peace. Then, when facing the inevitable result of this hypocrisy--failed peacekeeping missions--they can blame the United Nations and call for U.N. reform. The reforms may indeed be positive. But all the improvements in U.N. structure can't help if the United Nations' strongest members are using the organization more to cover their fecklessness than to help solve real problems.

 

[Buzzsaw]

Re: Re: Re: UN Needs Troops to Prevent Disaster in Congo

The US, however, as the most powerful military country in the world, should be putting in a proportional amount. The US, however, except for when it runs the show, such as in Korea, does not appear to be prepared to take a partnership role in such operations.

1. US soldiers should never be put under command of any non-US officers.

2. We don't owe the UN anything:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-304.html

3. I support US troops going in and establishing a democratic government, as we are in the process of doing in Iraq. Maybe if we had a little help from the UN in Iraq, we would have some resources to spare now that they need us....

 

[Skeptic]

Well, on the news today, the UN DID take action in the Ivory Coast: after eight months of civil war leaving thousands of dead, the UN okayed a peace keeping force--made up of about seventy unarmed, civilian observers. That'll show 'em!

The UN "peace keeping forces" are, and always have been, a pathetic joke and a total failure--EXCEPT when the US agrees to join the mission (usually with significant support from the UK, the only real friend--except israel--the US has even in foul weather.)

Then, these two nations take over 98% of the operation and 99% of the fighting, while graciously allowing the beurocrats in the UN to retain nominal "command" for prestige reasons, in an attempt to make it seem like it's truly an "international" effort.

To put it bluntly, all that matters is whether the US will go on the peacekeeping mission in Congo or not. If not, any peacekeeping mission would be a tragic farce, as most UN operations are. If it would, there is a chance to save many lives.

Of course, if the US DOES intervene, the usual crowd of Anti-American idiots like AUP will start ranting about "American imperialism" and how George Bush is a "racist" for attacking black people.

 

[a_unique_person]

Well, on the news today, the UN DID take action in the Ivory Coast: after eight months of civil war leaving thousands of dead, the UN okayed a peace keeping force--made up of about seventy unarmed, civilian observers. That'll show 'em!

The UN appears to have had the policy that armed 'observers' will be able to monitor and shame wrongdoers into behaving better. It has always had a problem with just sending in the troops, in the US style, to solve problems.

The problem is that due to the fact that the UN is not one unified body, but an aggregation of countries, that rapid changes in policy is not possible.

However, the number of troops, under UN control, around the world monitoring civil unrest is quite sizeable and expensive.

The UN "peace keeping forces" are, and always have been, a pathetic joke and a total failure--EXCEPT when the US agrees to join the mission (usually with significant support from the UK, the only real friend--except israel--the US has even in foul weather.)

And how is Israel going to handle the 'roadmap', one of Tony Blairs conditions for joining in Iraq.

Then, these two nations take over 98% of the operation and 99% of the fighting, while graciously allowing the beurocrats in the UN to retain nominal "command" for prestige reasons, in an attempt to make it seem like it's truly an "international" effort.

Unless someone gets hurt, like in Somalia. Then it becomes a political issue. In this case, used to attack Clinton, who pulled them out.

To put it bluntly, all that matters is whether the US will go on the peacekeeping mission in Congo or not. If not, any peacekeeping mission would be a tragic farce, as most UN operations are. If it would, there is a chance to save many lives.

Of course, if the US DOES intervene, the usual crowd of Anti-American idiots like AUP will start ranting about "American imperialism" and how George Bush is a "racist" for attacking black people.

Did you know the US is still the Military Commander of the South Korean Army? Amazingly, they still hold this position, humiliating the South Koreans as being second rate people who are not good enough to command their own armed forces in partnership with the US.

 

[a_unique_person]

Apart from all that, they are asking for help.

 

[renata]

Did you know the US is still the Military Commander of the South Korean Army? Amazingly, they still hold this position, humiliating the South Koreans as being second rate people who are not good enough to command their own armed forces in partnership with the US.

Funny you should mention South Korea in this context. This very morning I heard a story on NPR on the impending visit of South Korean leader Roh Moo-hyun to the White House. Apparently, he campaigned on a platform of removing US troops. Interestingly, the story mentioned, that since the recent North Korea fun, not only did he drop his opposition to the US forces there, but he was going to thank Bush for them being them.

 

[a_unique_person]

Funny you should mention South Korea in this context. This very morning I heard a story on NPR on the impending visit of South Korean leader Roh Moo-hyun to the White House. Apparently, he campaigned on a platform of removing US troops. Interestingly, the story mentioned, that since the recent North Korea fun, not only did he drop his opposition to the US forces there, but he was going to thank Bush for them being them.

Yes, he has to humiliate himself and have his own army under the command of the US. Don't expect much gratitude in the long run.

 

[renata]

Yes, he has to humiliate himself and have his own army under the command of the US. Don't expect much gratitude in the long run.

Well, he does not have to humiliate himself. I am sure if he requested US troops to leave, they would, and then he could have his army.

 

[a_unique_person]

Well, he does not have to humiliate himself. I am sure if he requested US troops to leave, they would, and then he could have his army.

False dichotomy. The US could offer aid on a co-operative basis, rather than insisting that they run the whole show, treating the South Koreans as quaint little Asians, who aren't mature enough to look after themselves, whom they are kind enough to help out.

It is a patronising attitude, that is not as bad as the attitude of the North towards the South, but nevertheless one that will not be forgotten.

If the US had kept it's deal about building reactors for the North that could not be used to build nukes, the whole situation may be different now. The North is desperately short of everything, including power, and is stirring the pot at present just to blackmail it's neighbours for aid.

 

[Kodiak]

Re: Re: Re: UN Needs Troops to Prevent Disaster in Congo

The US, however, as the most powerful military country in the world, should be putting in a proportional amount. The US, however, except for when it runs the show, such as in Korea, does not appear to be prepared to take a partnership role in such operations.

Screw a "partnership role"!

Who better to lead than "the most powerful military country in the world"?

Wise military commanders lead from a position of overwhelming strength, not "Which country's turn is it to lead this time?"...

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Re: Re: UN Needs Troops to Prevent Disaster in Congo

Screw a "partnership role"!

Who better to lead than "the most powerful military country in the world"?

Wise military commanders lead from a position of overwhelming strength, not "Which country's turn is it to lead this time?"...

Yes, that attitude will get you a long way. Maybe you should try reading 'How to win friends and influence people'.

 

[LW]

The UN "peace keeping forces" are, and always have been, a pathetic joke and a total failure--EXCEPT when the US agrees to join the mission

Cyprus. Maybe it was not a brilliant succes story, but it wasn't a pathetic failure, either.

 

[a_unique_person]

Cyprus. Maybe it was not a brilliant succes story, but it wasn't a pathetic failure, either.

I don't think that any peac keeping mission the US has ever been involved in has been pathetic. Avoidable tragedies, yes, political footballs, yes, under resourced, yes, pathetic, too many people have been dying and suffering in the causes they have been called to, to reduce the judgements to a mere evaluation of the UN actions.

Eg, Korea, what was that?

 

[Kodiak]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: UN Needs Troops to Prevent Disaster in Congo

Yes, that attitude will get you a long way.

Militarily, you couldn't be more correct...

Maybe you should try reading 'How to win friends and influence people'.

Diplomacy and Statecraft operate at their worst when they rely upon public opinion and popularity...