Email This to a Friend
U.N. Chokes in the Face of Congo Atrocities
Why are "peacekeepers" doing nothing as Rwanda II threatens to unfold?
How ironic that just the previous week Congolese citizens lashed out at U.N. peacekeepers as they rumbled their tanks away from the threatened town of Kibati. “Where are they going? They’re supposed to protect us!” the Associated Press heard one man shouting. And so after nine years of the U.N. presence in their country, after an untold number of sexual assaults committed by peacekeepers on Congolese girls and women, and the latest unsurprising but still tragic inability or unwillingness of the forces to get involved when needed most, Congolese civilians took the nearest weapon — rocks — into their own hands, and pelted four U.N. compounds in the provincial capital of Goma.
In another twist of tragic irony, the roots of this conflict stem in part from past U.N. inaction. While the Tutsis and Hutus have a long history of conflict, the current one in the eastern part of the DRC is billed as a carryover from the unchecked Rwandan genocide of 1994, in which the U.N. — and the Clinton administration — sat around debating the difference between plain old genocide and “acts of genocide.” Nearly a million deaths later, everyone had their answer.
And Hutu militiamen fled into neighboring countries, including rural parts of the DRC. The Tutsi rebel general, Laurent Nkunda, accuses the Congolese government of sheltering fighters responsible for the Rwandan genocide and says he fights to protect other Tutsis. How might the story be different if the U.N. and member states had actually provided the 5,000 troops that Gen. Romeo Dallaire, who oversaw the peacekeeping mission in Rwanda when the genocide began, begged and pleaded for to stop the machete-wielders? Six weeks into the 100-day genocide the Security Council approved the additional troops, but then nobody would volunteer soldiers. How might the story in the Congo be different today if the world had had the guts to say “enough” back then?
U.N. peacekeeping has long been a sick joke in the annals of world conflict. Just ask the Bosniaks who fled to the “safe area” of Srebrenica, to be guarded over by 400 Dutch peacekeepers, yet to have those peacekeepers watch as 8,000 boys and men were led to their deaths by Serbs. Or look at why Hezbollah felt it could safely rearm under the noses of peacekeepers after the U.N.-brokered cease-fire with Israel. Such operations are just window dressing, blue-hatted vanity contingents without much of a will and, thanks to a low priority placed on comprehensive leadership, discipline, and materiel support for peacekeeping forces, without much of a way. And striking fear in the hearts of militants? I can only imagine how many peacekeeper puns Nkunda has stockpiled away by this point.
As Rwanda Part Two threatens to unfold in the DRC, the incoming Barack Obama will have to decide if he’s going to take the Clinton approach to African genocide, or take a leadership role. His swear-in date will likely be too late, though, for the tens of thousands of Congolese in peril, and he’d likely take the U.N.-friendly route in line with his 2007 example of the Congo as a reason not to prevent genocide in Iraq, so let’s hope President Bush steps up with some serious parting shots at the U.N.’s paltry response. The African Union has threatened to send troops into the conflict, which could spiral things out of control into a regional war.
And Congolese wait, hoping there’s no mysterious knock on the door in the dead of night. It doesn’t matter that the “peacekeepers” are just down the road — who’s actually going to protect them?
<- Prev Page 2 of 2
Bridget Johnson is the online opinion editor, an opinion writer, and a blogger at the Rocky Mountain News.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
18 Comments
1. Typewriter King:If President Bush wants to charter a quasi-NGO peacekeaping force, I’d gladly serve a role. ^_~
Political leadership all around will be especially weak in 2009, so I really don’t see any solutions coming out of conventional sectors.
Nov 22, 2008 - 3:43 am 2. Philly:Bush has been vilified as an idiot and a war monger for years, and everybody knows that the world hates the USA for its imperialism. Why would Bush confirm the terrible opinion of him and his country by waging war in the noble Third World? I’m sure when the One is coronated on 20 January, the evil murderers in equatorial Africa will lay down their weapons and weep in shame at their behavior – problem solved. Meanwhile, “human shields”, deprived of the opportunity to protect a genocidal dictator in Iraq, could deploy to the Congo to protect the unfortunate UN “peacekeepers” from their rock-throwing attackers. All problems dissolve in the clear white light of hope and change emanating from the One!
Nov 22, 2008 - 5:22 am 3. Kyle:The U.N. would rather spend millions on themselves and their buildings, which are facades, in the truest sense of the word.
http://yellowlimes.blogspot.com/search?q=Foreign+Aid+Money+Used+For+%2423+Million+Art+Ceiling+at+U.N.+Human+Rights+Council+Geneva+mural+United+Nations+Ban+Ki-moon+Miquel+Barcelo+Hillel
It’s a shame the U.S. won’t withdraw from the U.N. and instead, use the money saved to hire groups such as Blackwater to protect people groups in danger of attack and death. That would be change you can believe in.
Nov 22, 2008 - 6:24 am 4. Terry Gain:@2 Philly
It’s so comforting to read the comments of someone who has seen the light. Keep spreading the word.
Nov 22, 2008 - 7:17 am 5. njcommuter:Would that the MSM (or even Fox) compare the sexual predacity of these “peacekeepers” with the minor abuses of Abu Ghraib! They are a mob disguised as a militia, sent to do the job of a gendarmarie and dignified by the name of an army. Anyone who doubts the honor of the American military tradition should be forced to confront this uncivilized, undisciplined, abominable and depraved abuse of the trust and power given for the defense of civilization but used for rape and pillage. Never, even at their lowest, have American (or Confederate) soldiers come near this grade of depravity.
Nov 22, 2008 - 8:11 am 6. Nevada Whitesoxfan:“Will somebody answer that help line?We’re busy in Iraq and Afghanistan”.
Nov 22, 2008 - 11:00 am 7. History Geek:The UN “peacekeeping” forces have been ineffectual in the DRC and elsewhere for two simple reasons as is shown by their operational history. Reason one: Most of the contingents are tactically inept, poorly trained, poorly equipped and badly officered. Reason two: The rules of engagement are overly restrictive and do not allow for any taking of the offensive initiative even by those few contingents both capable and willing to do so. The ROE problem has two parts, the UN rules and those imposed by the political leadership of the national governments.
There are other difficulties as well. Usually the political goal of the deployment is not well defined. There is no definition of success. Well meaning hand-wringers of the NGO community are allowed too much leeway to criticise the actions of the deployed forces. The old stand-by charges of “neo-colonialism” and “racism” are hurled quickly by the local government (if any) and the local wannabe governmental contenders. The ever-so-sensitive types at the UN listen too quickly and too well to complaints of this nature.
Then there are the minor difficulties such as no unity of command. No common doctrine. No interoperability of equipment. Poor communications. Language barriers. And, in the estimate of the snuffies, the guys who do the killing and dying, damn little reason to put one’s butt in the line of fire. Orders from above are not a good reason for getting killed particularly when one’s own country has no dog in the fight.
The above is just for openers, the observations of a military historian and one time grunt who actually spent some time up close and personal with UN peacekeeping ops.
Nov 22, 2008 - 11:44 am 8. Ken Hahn:You say that UN peacekeeping has long been a sick joke. I’ll go you one better. The UN has long been a sick joke ( since about 1945 ). We need to get out. Financing this kleptomaniac dictators’ club is a crime against humanity. The US needs to stop doing it.
Nov 22, 2008 - 11:53 am 9. AST:What else can you expect when you put a bunch of pacifists in charge of defending human rights?
The U.S. should withdraw from the U.N. and start building a league of democracies willing to defend it or assist it around the world. The U.N. was designed to create deadlock on most issues.
Nov 22, 2008 - 12:01 pm 10. don:I suggest that the neo New Left drop their linen, quit their grinnen, and pick up an AK47 on the the way to Darfur to stop the genocide now: American Express, never leave home with out it. Besides an icon of the left, the AK47 is plentiful in Africa, and it can be picked for a good price, unlike San Francisco where only Sean Penn and ilk can acquire a concealed weapons permit. Less talk and more walk from the likes of Michael Moore and Jane Fonda, saviors of the common folk, successful capitalists passing for communists, and perhaps the African genocides would end at the point of a gun. If only the rank and file Lear jet liberals of the Daily Kos would show up for the Darfur peace keeping rather than London Concerts against global warming and the genocide would stop. With that victory under their belts, then they could move on to the rumble in the jungle in the Congo. You go girls! After all, you can’t adopt all those babies and the Netroots have never stopped a civil war in progress.
Nov 22, 2008 - 1:05 pm 11. P. Ami:Any question what’ll happen once the UN, the American Left, the EU, and the Arab League convince the Israeli government to capitulate (one can argue that acceptance of a Two State Solution was the first capitulation)? We’ll have the good people in UN Peace-Keeper blue protesting in good bureaucratic fashion that they are there to keep the peace and not stop a genocide.
Nov 22, 2008 - 2:04 pm 12. cedarford:History Geek – There is no definition of success. Well meaning hand-wringers of the NGO community are allowed too much leeway to criticise the actions of the deployed forces.
It goes well past criticism to anti-Western human rights lawyers and “progressive” Leftists like Kenneth Roth openly gunning for trials for “evil” Western soldiers committing “acts of violence” against “possibly innocent people” living with or alongside terrorists and insurgents.
Peacekeepers from Canada and The Netherlands have had full trials for chickenshit like beating Somali thieves raining their camps and stealing supplies..and it brought down the Dutch government.
Marines from Haditha fell victim to US media, the insurgents counter-propaganda campaign and were brought back to the USA in shackles to stand trial as Leftist Jews from Roth to George Soros to Barbara Boxer to the NYTimes presumed their guilt and demanded their blood, along with Nancy Pelosi’s pet, John Murtha.
And of course it isn’t just Leftist Jews gunning for Marines, you have the European side of the “human rights lawyers” community gunning for them as well as European peacekeepers and their true speciality – denouncing and suing Israel for “atrocities” while turning a blind eye to the “persecuted Muslims engaged in resistance activities.”
This has made many governments hyper-cautious or outright unwilling to send their forces into the face of lawsuits and media frenzy that could occur if they so much as poke their heads out of “safe compounds” in Afghanistan, Congo, Iraq and say “boo!” to the bad guys.
Meanwhile, the US has been beaten up enough by the self-righteous Left domestically and internationally, seen our troops demoralized by overly-restrictive ROE….that it may be in our national interest to let a big messy bloodbath just happen with the US not lifting a finger to stop it until the Left stops seeing human suffering as something that “traps” their opponents into involvement and which they then can denounce and exploit for political and legal actions.
A good place to start is the Congo. Let ‘em die….Then get all the Samantha Powers, Soros, Roth, lawyer types and the Euroweenies together and say “The Congo was a lesson.” Do not say “Something Must Be Done!! if your real objective is West and soldier-bashing.”
“If you want intervention, you must agree to support a “Good Samaritan Law” for our country’s armed forces” Because just as countries were compelled to do on learning motorists and medical people, after wide knowledge the slightest error in rescue could lead to a pack of lawyers suing their asses – found it safer to walk or drive by injured people and let them die, you don’t send soldiers into harms way and attempt to sue or criminalize them for any error.
“If you Lefties, Jewish progressives, and NGOs continue on your present path – you can kiss hunanitarian interventions and peacekeeping goodbye.”
History Geek recognizes the present system is unworkable. Be a Marine, risk your ass for vicious 3rd worlders you must rescue when it it is not in your Country’s vital interest, see yourself or other Marines clamped in irons for a mistake or non-mistake that NGOs and spokesmen for the enemy call “murder, atrocity!!”. Want to sign up for that?
****************
The U.S. should withdraw from the U.N. and start building a league of democracies willing to defend it or assist it around the world.
We ran into problems with that with the “Coalition of the Willing”. No one really wants to be in a US-led “League of Lackeys” doing the declining Great Power’s bidding. We ran into other democracies having quite different ideas of what is in their best interest in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in past Wars like Vietnam.
Nov 22, 2008 - 3:34 pm 13. ron:And democracies are not agreed on what their “coalition of democratic Freedom-Lovers!!!” would do. Be a pact where we defend certain democracies against non-democracies, but not others? A pact where “democracries” with no vital interest at stake, defend unquestioningly “other democracies”?
500 hundred mercenaries could put down the insurrection and killing in a couple of days but its not politically correct. Highly trained, well armed merc’s would have no problem with this but it can’t happen. White troops and black murderers, no way; the people have to die. Same thing happened in Rwanda, 800,000 people died when the white merc were taken out by the UN. The poor blacks of Africa were better off under colonialism, they had laws, they had safety, they had jobs and dignity, now they have death by machete.
Nov 22, 2008 - 6:17 pm 14. Ann:Isn’t Obama going to fix this by walking on water or something?
Nov 22, 2008 - 6:31 pm 15. robotech master:The UN is by far the largest and most damaging actor on the continent of africa. They give money to petty dictators who in turn use this money to raise armies and attack their neighbors or their own ppl… which in turn the UN uses as an excuse to exist… its nothing more then a giant scam thats being played on the world most of all the US tax payer. Sending money to africa or even aid of any form simply makes problems worse there. The only way to fix things is to start on one corner of the continent and take over one country at a time setting up a government that can run. The only short term fix for many of these minor wars and genocide are merc units dropped in with orders to kill everything that is acting stupid period.
UN peacekeepers have never in the history of africa stopped a war or genocide… however they have a long history of helping both start and/or standing by and doing nothing. If UN peacekeepers could fix africa’s problems they would have 20+ years ago. Africa is still a hellhole and UN peacekeepers are still there… funny how that is…
Nov 22, 2008 - 9:20 pm 16. Gozer the Carpathian:I wait with baited breath for The One to solve this problem. I mean he’s already president right? NPR and Reuters are already polling and talking like he is.
Nov 22, 2008 - 11:14 pm 17. Liberty:That’s globalism for you. Looks as though USA is destined to become a vassal of the UN.
Nov 25, 2008 - 8:18 pm 18. TomF:“…[T]o please foreigners …, he will back measures that limit U.S. sovereignty. …
In the November 17 issue of the National Review (not available online to my knowledge), John Fonte of the Hudson Institute identifies four “transnational power grabs” that Obama is likely to push for They are: the Law of the Sea Treaty, the Rights of the Child Treaty, the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), and the International Criminal Court. Agreement by the U.S. to these arrangements would make us more popular with foreigners, but only at a cost to our national security, our right of self-governance, and our rights under the Constitution.”
(Power Line Blog: John Hinderaker, Scott Johnson, Paul Mirengoff
http://www.powerlineblog.com, November 8, 2008 Posted by Paul at 10:16 PM)
Seems like we voted for it.
OK every one, I understand the sarcasm of referring to Obama as the “One” or as the “Messiah”. But these are serious issues, and for my part I find little humor in it all.
Reading the article, there is one obvious answer to the whole issue of the ineffectiveness of the UN forces. The UN needs more power to accomplish this task and that power will only come by superseding national sovereignty, which includes that of the US as well. Our original constitution was “the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union”, which failed because it failed to create a power that could rule over the states. In short some one needs to be in control. Now the question is should the UN be given such power to rule over all the nations of the World. No, No, & No! Be careful because this is where it is leading to.
Any effectual response to crises of those happening in the Congo will be led by a sovereign state and a leader that is more concerned about the lives of people than what “the world” thinks. Bush has been such a leader and it is a shame that he has been demonized. With hindsight you may be able to point out some mistakes, but it is easier to coach from the bleachers and comment after the game than to actually call the shots. Whether America or any other country should enter into such a conflict is for every Sovereign state to decide. And often the issues are much more complicated than they first appear.
Nov 26, 2008 - 6:17 am