UN Needs Troops to Prevent Disaster in Congo

[aerocontrols]

An interesting take on joining a UN peacekeeping force in the Congo.

Still, there are the innocents to worry about. The west wants aid to start flowing again, and for that someone has to step in now that the Rwandans have gone. The trouble is that a peacekeeping force in the Congo now isn't a normal UN peacekeeping force, in the sense that it's stepping in with the consent of all parties to sort out a civil war, or interpose itself between two warring countries... it's stepping in to replace Mugabe's and the others' troops propping up the decadent Kabila Inc. dictatorship. It's certainly not like any traditional peacekeeping situation... it's not like Somalia, where the UN stepped in in the absence of any government... Kabila is the universally recognized ruler. It's not like Rwanda, where they were trying to interpose on the agreement of both sides in a civil war, either. No, if the UN goes, it's going to keep the Hutus down, and Kabila in power. How is that consistent, in any way, with the founding principles of this organization? If providing mercenaries to a third-world dictator is all the non-U.S. western militaries are good for, then they're worse than useless.

Never mind that you'll never get the 20,000 troops needed, leaving any force that goes there undermanned in extreme danger. (Two UN observers were hacked to death last week.) Never mind that this was tried once before and failed, in 1960, with the UN leaving in embarassment three years later, and scaling back its interventionist ambitions for the next 30 years. But the whole thing is JUST WRONG. It's the antithesis of everything the UN once claimed to stand for.

I stand by my original response. No troops for peacekeeping, since it means supporting the current dictatorship.

I support sending troops if they will be used to oust the current regime and build a stable country.

aerocontrols

 

[a_unique_person]

An interesting take on joining a UN peacekeeping force in the Congo.



I stand by my original response. No troops for peacekeeping, since it means supporting the current dictatorship.

I support sending troops if they will be used to oust the current regime and build a stable country.

aerocontrols

I don't know that the intent is to prop up a dictator, although that would be one of the unfortunate side effects. The main reason is to just stop the slaughter of people. And in this case, the is legal backing for the action, in the form of the UN.

 

[aerocontrols]

I don't know that the intent is to prop up a dictator, although that would be one of the unfortunate side effects. The main reason is to just stop the slaughter of people. And in this case, the is legal backing for the action, in the form of the UN.

Does this mean you're going to stop preaching about the lessons of the past re: supporting a dictator in pursuit of greater good? Aren't you worried about blowback?

I don't give a fig about UN backing. The UN will never give backing to do anything that will solve the problem.

MattJ

 

[a_unique_person]

Does this mean you're going to stop preaching about the lessons of the past re: supporting a dictator in pursuit of greater good? Aren't you worried about blowback?

I don't give a fig about UN backing. The UN will never give backing to do anything that will solve the problem.

MattJ

Who is supporting him, I think the UN is just there to divide the lines and encourage disarmament, which is the next step up from just being there to observe how bad it is all getting.

The dictator is not being supported for some ulterior motive, such as backing him because he is engaged in a war with someone else the UN doesn't like.

And UN is at least some start to a legal basis for action.

 

[aerocontrols]

The dictator is not being supported for some ulterior motive, such as backing him because he is engaged in a war with someone else the UN doesn't like.

Oh, then, I'm sure those he oppresses won't mind.

 

[a_unique_person]

Oh, then, I'm sure those he oppresses won't mind.

You are mixing the logic around here.

I that the people would prefer to be oppressed than shot or hacked to deat.

As to a process of freeing people around the world from oppressors, that is something that may be a good idea. Can we formulate some sort of legal structure to ensure there won't just be a bunch of vigilantes going around acting as they want.

 

[LW]

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

Okay, so ONCE the UN managed not to COMPLETELY screw things up. Quite the organization for solving the problems in Congo...

Sorry for my delayed reply, I didn't notice your post until yesterday evening.

Cyprus was the first example of successful peacekeeping where US troops were not involved. Mozambique is probably another (at least I haven't been able to find mentions of US participation there). I'd guess that there are also other examples, but I'm not interested enough to dig data about them. (Most links that came up with google omit the details of the peacekeeping force compositions.)

But anyway, I have a trouble taking you any more seriously than AUP. Both of you usually write reasonable arguments but then suddenly there comes an unsupported assertion that makes me wonder on what planet you live.

In my opinion, you use the words "all" and "every" a little too much for your username.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Ah so France and the rest of the UN posse finally want our help....I smell payback coming.

 

[Jon_in_london]

I stand by my original response. No troops for peacekeeping, since it means supporting the current dictatorship.

You are assuming that Kabila is a dictator. His father (the old pres.) was assasinated and then Kabila jnr took over a country that was and is at war. Of course he hasnt held elections. Do you realistically expect a country in the state that DRC is in to be able to hold free and fair elections? Thought not. Then why are you bitching about supporting a dictator who isnt?

 

[aerocontrols]

You are mixing the logic around here.

I that the people would prefer to be oppressed than shot or hacked to deat.

I think I know what you mean here...

Different people want different things, AUP. If everyone in the region preferred that the violence just stop, then it would. The fact that peacekeepers are needed implies that someone doesn't want peace. Whole tribes of people.

As to a process of freeing people around the world from oppressors, that is something that may be a good idea. Can we formulate some sort of legal structure to ensure there won't just be a bunch of vigilantes going around acting as they want.

No, probably not.

MattJ

 

[aerocontrols]

You are assuming that Kabila is a dictator. His father (the old pres.) was assasinated and then Kabila jnr took over a country that was and is at war. Of course he hasnt held elections. Do you realistically expect a country in the state that DRC is in to be able to hold free and fair elections? Thought not. Then why are you bitching about supporting a dictator who isnt?

By any reasonable definition of 'dicatator' - he is. Your complaint here seems to be that he's been forced into being a dictator, because it's not reasonable to expect him to hold elections. (An excuse of dictators since forever) Even if true, (which I don't believe) he still is a dictator.

Claiming that he's not is rather odd, don't you think?

MattJ

 

[Jon_in_london]

By any reasonable definition of 'dicatator' - he is. Your complaint here seems to be that he's been forced into being a dictator, because it's not reasonable to expect him to hold elections. (An excuse of dictators since forever) Even if true, (which I don't believe) he still is a dictator.

Claiming that he's not is rather odd, don't you think?

MattJ

Claiming he is a dictator seems rather odd to me. Why do you think its reasonable for him to have elections? Is it your opinion that he should just hold an election any old way even though there isnt even a farts chance in a hurricane that they will be free and fair (through no fault of his own)?

 

[Jon_in_london]

Just to clarify your position here-

You say he is a dictator because he has not held elections.
He has not held elections because is country is torn by war/civil war and there isnt even the remotest possibility of them being free or fair.
But by default he is a dictator.
So, instead of sending in a peacekeeping mission to restore order and allow elections to be held, you refuse 'to prop up a dictator'
thereby basically guarenteeing that the state of war/civil war will carry on in perpetuity.

Wunderbar!

I wonder if your position is representative of the US in general?

 

[rikzilla]

Well...if it walks like a duck...etc...etc... Yeah,...he is a dictator. Ok, so maybe since he seems not to be able to control his country enough to ensure safe (if not fair) elections, then he's just a crappy and incompetant dictator.

AC is right...if we go in, we go in to make a fresh start of things. The lives of our soldiers are not to be spent propping up dictatorial governments, or sacrificed on the altar of UN intransigence.

I remember reading about the uprising against Belgian colonialism in 1963. Seems the Congolese not only killed the Belgians they captured...but ate some of them as well. The image of missionaries tied up in a cauldron comes to mind.

The real problem may just be that these people are not civilized enough to properly govern themselves? Ah, but then I'll be accused of cultural elitism, won't I?? Maybe that's why AUP wants to prop up the current dictator? He's afraid that the dictator is just what those uncivilized heathens need! Yet is afraid to say it out loud.

My, my....what a perfect example of liberal indecision and self doubt.

-z

 

[a_unique_person]

The real problem may just be that these people are not civilized enough to properly govern themselves? Ah, but then I'll be accused of cultural elitism, won't I?? Maybe that's why AUP wants to prop up the current dictator? He's afraid that the dictator is just what those uncivilized heathens need! Yet is afraid to say it out loud.

My, my....what a perfect example of liberal indecision and self doubt.

-z

I think admitting that a problem is complex and that one doesn't have a definite solution is a good sign.

I work with computers, and a lot of my work involves problem solving. It pays to always keep an open mind about things as much as possible. Saying something like 'If we do x we will solve the problem' is a guarenteed way of ending up with egg on your face.

 

[Jon_in_london]

Well...if it walks like a duck...etc...etc... Yeah,...he is a dictator. Ok, so maybe since he seems not to be able to control his country enough to ensure safe (if not fair) elections, then he's just a crappy and incompetant dictator.

Perhaps its because his country has/had armies from half a dozen other nations all fighting it out. Christ! you guys are just so totally f*cking ignorant! Why dont you go read up on the recent history of the country?

AC is right...if we go in, we go in to make a fresh start of things. The lives of our soldiers are not to be spent propping up dictatorial governments, or sacrificed on the altar of UN intransigence.

No, they will be sacrificed for Halliburton instead.

 

[aerocontrols]

Just to clarify your position here-

You say he is a dictator because he has not held elections.

No, I said he was a dictator. You brought up elections.

He has not held elections because is country is torn by war/civil war and there isnt even the remotest possibility of them being free or fair.

That's your claim. What makes you think Kabila is interested in having elections of any type, much less free and fair ones that may push him out of power?

But by default he is a dictator.

No, not by default. By the fact that he is the unelected (although that's not required for dictatorship) autocratic ruler.

So, instead of sending in a peacekeeping mission to restore order and allow elections to be held, you refuse 'to prop up a dictator' thereby basically guarenteeing that the state of war/civil war will carry on in perpetuity.

No, if you look at my original post, I suggested that if we are going to get involved, we take over, oust the current regime, and build a stable country. I also suggest that for a lot of other African states. Kabila can return to power after he's won an election and is subject to democratic checks and balances.

I wonder if your position is representative of the US in general?

Hard to say. Why do you ask?

MattJ

 

[Jon_in_london]

No, I said he was a dictator. You brought up elections.
...................
That's your claim. What makes you think Kabila is interested in having elections of any type, much less free and fair ones that may push him out of power?
...................
No, not by default. By the fact that he is the unelected (although that's not required for dictatorship) autocratic ruler.

What makes me think he is interested in elections? well he has expressed his desire to do so. I think its pretty fair to give hime the benfit of the doubt in the meantime....

No, if you look at my original post, I suggested that if we are going to get involved, we take over, oust the current regime, and build a stable country. I also suggest that for a lot of other African states. Kabila can return to power after he's won an election and is subject to democratic checks and balances.

Build a stable country, like you did in Afghanistan and are doing now in Iraq? Look! heres one you invaded earlier... doesnt look very good does it?

And speaking of Afghanistan! was your puppet ruler elected? has he ever held elections? No? Then I find it stange that you moralise about the UN 'propping up a dictator' whereas the US is not only 'propping up a dictator' it was the US that installed him in power in the first place.

 

[Hypocolius]

No, if you look at my original post, I suggested that if we are going to get involved, we take over, oust the current regime, and build a stable country.

Do you have any idea how big DRC is? Someone here suggested sending "20,000" troops, I'm afraid they would be as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike. DRC is f*cking huge. It has no usable highways, and few airstrips. The baddies would just have to take their kit off and loaf about in the forest until the US buggered off, and it would all start again, and whoever is in charge of the US military knows it.

The DRC cannot be made into a stable country without..... I don't know, rewriting the history books I suppose.

A prediction. If the US/ UN/ EU/ IRA/ Disneyworld decide to send in troops, the maximum extent of their mission in DRC will be to protect western interests/ embassies (do-able), and that is it. Any other stated intent will be for the cameras only, and will not be followed through. Nothing else is possible.

I also suggest that for a lot of other African states. Kabila can return to power after he's won an election and is subject to democratic checks and balances.

Amen brother, but how will you go about enforcing this little slice of nirvana? Who is going to give their assent for a government to take power? What sanction does any country have if they don't like the internal workings of another country? Will the US invade Zambia because Levy Mwanawasa is a bit dodgy?

Don't think so.