U.N. troops 'die in Congo ambush'

[Martlet]

Originally posted by GScholz
The phrase you're looking for is "the US had to beg on its knees".

Actually, the phrases I was looking for was "refused to leave the compound", "had to be ordered not to retreat", and "fled to allow the mutilation of American soldiers".

Not only corruption in the UN, but cowardice.

[Staga]

Just from the news: at yesterday UN troops in Kongo killed 50-60 enemies and used also armor and combat helos..

Of course they were just UN troops and not real soldiers like Lazs said.

[Staga]

Yeah I thought so.

[lazs2]

hmm... so they are not really peacekeepers but armed soldiers?  I certainly don't want them to ever come to my country.

lazs

[Toad]

Now lets' see. The UN "Peacekeepers" just took agressive action against the militias?

The head of the UN peacekeepers in Congo, General Jean-François Collot d'Escury, accused the militia groups of terrorising the local population and said an aggressive operation was under way to dismantle their camps.

So now they must be "uninvited", right Scholz?

Originally posted by GScholz
The job of a peacekeeper is to oversee a ceasefire or peace treaty as a neutral third party and report to both sides on what they see.

I'm not sure the UN troops' leadership understands that G. You had better get an E-mail to the chop-chop!

General Collot d'Escury vowed to dismantle all the militia camps in the area, saying his message to the gunmen was straightforward: the UN peacekeepers know how to fight.

Originally posted by GScholz
They're not supposed to fight. They're there on the invitation of the conflicting parties to act as observers. If peacekeepers suddenly start to act like peacemakers, they will soon find themselves uninvited everywhere.

Whoooo... if you're right you maybe better call Eliane at the UN too and give her the word.

"This group continues to loot, kill and rape these people, making life miserable," said UN spokeswoman Eliane Nabaa.

"It's time to put an end to this militia."

 

Originally posted by GScholz
No they can "actively" defend themselves against renegade forces and bandits, however they need the authorization of the local government to do so. Preferably the local forces can deal with the situation and let the UN stay neutral.

Looks like your view of UN Peacekeeping ops is becoming passe, Scholz. Perhaps they finally will become what they should be.

....After years being derided as "tourists in a war zone", the United Nations peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo has sent out a new message - that it will get tough on ethnic militias.....

...Gen Collot d'Escury said Monuc was determined to dismantle camps used by the fighters, even if it meant using force.

The new tough talking follows a year in which Monuc's failure to prevent rebel forces taking control of the key eastern town of Bukavu prompted criticism and anti-UN riots.

Originally posted by GScholz
What you propose will halt the shipment of aid to what? 90% of the third world? With a more aggressive ROE the UN simply won't get invited. The UN aid programs and all the private charities depend on UN peacekeepers to protect their convoys.

What you propose would kill millions.

No, what I propose would make the UN a meaningful organization. It would seem that there are far more than I that view it that way. Perhaps you are the one marching out of step?

...UN spokesman Kemal Saiki told the BBC News website the offensive showed that extra troops in Ituri were starting to make an impact, even though the full deployment has not yet been reached....

....And he warned the militia could expect many more such operations if they continued to resist the peacekeepers' efforts to disarm them....

....The BBC's Arnaud Zajtman in Kinshasa says most people in DR Congo welcome Monuc's offensive against the Ituri militia as long overdue.

"The real scandal for Monuc for the people was the fact that the UN wasn't imposing the peace that it was supposed to impose, so it wasn't really fulfilling its task," he says.

For my part, I salute the new UN attitude. It's long overdue and it seems they've finally realized that.

You know, if the death of those Pakistanis finally results in the UN blue helmets becoming what they should have been... and aggressive peacekeeping force, then they did not die in vain. They should be hailed around the world for the sacrifice they made to get the UN's collective head out of it's anal vent with respect to going after the bad guys.

[Staga]

I didn't knew those casualties were from Pakistan.
Oh well; papa Toad knows better

[Staga]

btw Toad; You really like to b1tch don't you?
Well if it brings some pleasure then go for it

[Toad]

Here, re-read this from "UN spokesman" Kemal Saiki:

"The real scandal for Monuc for the people was the fact that the UN wasn't imposing the peace that it was supposed to impose, so it wasn't really fulfilling its task," he says.

"IMPOSING the peace" is a far, far cry from your

GScholz:  The job of a peacekeeper is to oversee a ceasefire or peace treaty as a neutral third party and report to both sides on what they see.

They're not observing now, they're IMPOSING THE PEACE.  You can see the difference, can you not?

Clearly, this is NOT how the "UN has been operating all along". If it were, there would not have been aggressive NATO attacks against the Serbs. Nor would the slaughter of 800,000 in Rwanda have happened while Dallaire was forced to sit idly by and watch.

If you think this is how the "UN has been operating all along" you're delusional.

Again, from the BBC:

....After years being derided as "tourists in a war zone", the United Nations peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo has sent out a new message - that it will get tough on ethnic militias.....

No, this is a sea-change for the UN. The comments from the UN spokespersons highlight just how out of touch you are (now) with respect to the duties of the peacekeepers as you stated them in this thread.

GScholz:
 The job of a peacekeeper is to oversee a ceasefire or peace treaty as a neutral third party and report to both sides on what they see.

It's clear they are no longer overseeing a ceasefire as a neutral third party. The UN forces have clearly taken sides and are actively attempting to disarm one side.

This is the chance, the golden opportunity. The UN can shed the "Scholz view" of peacekeeping and embrace an active role against the bad guys. I hope they seize the moment.

[lazs2]

wait a minute... they are after "bandits"?   so now they are cops from.... from where?

lazs

[indy007]

UN downplays deadly confrontation in Congo

But residents say 'tough' UN response against militias ignores civilian suffering.

By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com


The United Nation's history in the Congo can be described as a "troubled" one. That may be why the UN reacted quickly to defend the actions of UN peacekeeping troops in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), who killed 60 militiamen in a fierce gunbattle Wednesday.

The Associated Press reports that 242 Pakistani peacekeepers from the UN Mission in the Congo, known as MONUC, were on a mission to dismantle a militia headquarters "in lawless Ituri province in eastern Congo" when they came under fire. The troops returned the fire and were assisted by Indian helicopter gunships.

'The UN has traditionally kept peace. It hasn't done war fighting, but when you're confronted with people who are fighting you, you have to exercise self-defense and take them out, basically,' Britain's UN Ambassador Emyr Jones-Parry said.
Ituri province is the same area where nine UN troops from Bangledesh were killed last Friday. The AllAfrica.com reports that the nine men were not killed in battle, but were kept alive and then executed by militiamen.

The International Online of South Africa reports that the area is "awash" in guns, fueled by the gold and diamond trade. The Washington Post reports that a peace agreement has been in place in the region since 2002, but "at least seven militias vie for control of the area's diamonds and gold."

None of Ituri's militias is part of the peace deal. With no representatives in Congo's transitional government, they have little interest in national elections planned for this year, analysts said. 'If the UN looks for militia, they are going to find them,' said Jim Terrie, an expert on the Ituri region at the Nairobi chapter of the International Crisis Group. Even if the UN forces are 'acting more robustly' in pursuing those who killed the Bangladeshis, he said, 'they need to take a different path to achieve peace and not just justice for a small group.'
The BBC reports that the militia members killed in Tuesday's gunbattle, belonged to the ethnic Lendu Nationalist and Integrationist Front (FNI), the same group that is believed to have killed the Bangladeshi peacekeepers. AllAfrica.com reported Wednesday that government justice officials arrested several FNI militia leaders Tuesday.

The Daily Telegraph, however, reports that criticism of the UN operation in Congo is mounting after it emerged that up to one-third of those killed were civilians used by the militia as human shields. Congelese officials in the area say that 20 women and children died, including several after the helicopter gunships set their huts on fire.

'What we are sure of is that the militiamen were using civilians as human shields,' said Eliane Nabaa, a UN spokesman in Ituri's main town of Bunia. 'We think the majority of those killed, maybe all, were militiamen but we are investigating to see if there were civilians among the dead.'
Reuters reports that "ordinary Congalese" are outraged at the UN's actions because the body's new "get tough" policies on militias in the country take no account of civilian suffering. Many in the town of Bunia, near Ituri province, say the UN's actions were "misplaced revenge" for last week's ambush killings, and show that UN lives count more than civilian lives. Almost 3 million people have died in fighting in the Congo.
'Nine people die and it triggers a huge bombardment, but how many thousands of people died here?' said Christophe, a businessman sitting astride his parked motorbike on a rutted pavement in this ramshackle mining town ... 'There are those who bleed milk and those who bleed blood,' he said, using a proverb to signal the incident showed African lives were worth less to the United Nations than those of foreigners.
The Post reports that the UN mission in the Congo, one of the "largest and most expensive" of the organization's peacekeeping operations, has been heavily criticized in the past for standing aside when violence flared in past incicents in Ituri province. In May of 2003, a UN contingent from Uruguay watched as militias killed 500 people in Bunia, including several shot as they were trying to make their way into the UN compound for protection.
Last year, a breakaway faction of the Congolese army attacked Bukavu, the capital of South Kivu province, while UN troops watched and made no effort to stop them. A few days later, thousands of people in the capital of Kinshasa demonstrated and burned UN vehicles in protest.

Allegations of sex crimes

Voice of America reports on the other dark moment for the UN in the country: the allegation that UN peacekeeping troops used food and money to buy sexual favors from woman and girls, some as young as 12. The US Congress held hearings Monday on the reports, which Congressmen called "shameful."

An editorial in the Kenyan newspaper, The Nation, notes that the head UN envoy in DRC, former US Ambassador William Lacy Swing, will likely announce his regignation soon because of his failure to deal with the soldiers and sex issue. The paper said the UN needs to "re-examine its criteria for recruiting soldiers to its peacekeeping missions in the first place, the training these soldiers get, and their all-round suitability as peacekeepers."

The greatest criticism that the world body faces today is the immoral opulence displayed by its staff in a sea of strife and poverty. Some of the staff have doubtful qualification and scant knowledge of local culture. In the same breath, the world body should be applauded for exposing the rot within its system, for self-criticism is the first step towards self-improvement.
Although many UN soldiers serving in the DRC accused of these crimes have been sent back to their countries, The Scotsman reports that most go completely unpunished for their actions. But Jordan’s UN Ambassador Prince Zeid al Hussein, who is writing a report on the situation, is apparently going to recomment that "foreign soldiers accused of wrongdoing be court-martialed in the country where the claims were made."
Finally, a report released Monday by the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies said deployments of peacekeepers (and civilian contractors) in the Balkans had "only boosted demand for trafficked women and put money in the pockets of organized crime.'

The report, released yesterday, accused the UN, the US Defense Department and NATO of failing to adhere to their "zero-tolerance" policies of soldiers having sex with local women.

Okay, somebody explain this to me..

"None of Ituri's militias is part of the peace deal."

If the UN peacekeepers are there, imposing a peace deal on groups that obviously don't want it... doesn't that make them the equivelent of mercenaries for the Congo government? Heading out into the bush to "dismantle" a headquarters in lawless territory doesn't seem very neutral to me. I dunno though, that's just my opinion.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by indy007
UN downplays deadly confrontation in Congo




Okay, somebody explain this to me..

"None of Ituri's militias is part of the peace deal."

If the UN peacekeepers are there, imposing a peace deal on groups that obviously don't want it... doesn't that make them the equivelent of mercenaries for the Congo government? Heading out into the bush to "dismantle" a headquarters in lawless territory doesn't seem very neutral to me. I dunno though, that's just my opinion.

Shhhh.  They're nation building.

[GRUNHERZ]

I'm happy that the UN soldiers are killing the bad guys in such a nice way.

One thing I gotta say about this UN thing though, it's intersting to see Pakistani troops being given air support by Indian helicopers... Nice job.

[indy007]

Originally posted by GScholz
They're not imposing a peace deal on the Ituris. The Ituris are not part of the peace deal with the government. The UN forces will however defend themselves, aggressively if necessary, as their UN mandate allow. This UN action was a response to the killing of 9 peacekeepers.

Okay, understandable..

The high death count and fierce fighting defied the notion that U.N. peacekeepers stick to defense rather than joining the fight. But the Congo mission was given a stronger mandate last year to round up guns and defend the populace.

Aggressive defense = going into a hot zone to dismantle the opposition's local headquarters? Sounds like they're making war, not peace to me! I can't pretend to know exactly what's going on over there. I'm just commenting on the perception of it... but, doesn't the mission they ran, (which was not retaliation according to the UN) seem like it would be one for the Congo's standing army? If they fought a 6 country war that ended 3 years ago, they should still have multiple divisions (even reservists) on standbye for this type of operation. Supplying observers, equipment, training.. okay.. but sending troops to take care of it for them?

[Toad]

Originally posted by GScholz
They are observing the disarmament and absorption of the militias into the government army.

[/b]

You conveniently ignore the fact that these militias were part of the truce. They're just one "side" of the conflict that the truce addressed.


"Renegades" is about the only fig leaf you have left to hide behind now that you're theory of how the "Peacekeepers" are supposed to act was blown out of the water by the UN talking about "IMPOSING the peace".

Face it, the UN "IMPOSING the peace" just totally negates all your former arguments in this thread.

There is absolutely no way you can portray the UN as a "neutral third party" in the Congo right now. They are clearlyl going after one of the former "sides".

[Toad]

Originally posted by GScholz
[BThis is a part of their UN mandate that was authorized in February 2000 ... before 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq and the American populist anti-UN "campaign". Some "sea-change" you've got there Toad. [/B]

LOL!

The "sea change" is that they are actually getting their thumbs out and DOING something.

Here, let me refresh your memory with the way any intelligent viewer saw the situation:

"The real scandal for Monuc for the people was the fact that the UN wasn't imposing the peace that it was supposed to impose, so it wasn't really fulfilling its task," he says.

See, the change is they are actually doing something rather than spouting a lot of rhetoric without any action to back it up.