NationStates Jolt Archive

www.yahoo.com

'The special U.N. envoy for Iraq, Lakhdar Brahimi, told the Security Council in a briefing on proposals for Iraq's political transition that Najaf and Kufa were "among the holiest and most beloved cities for millions of Shia in Iraq and around the world. They're places for worship and not for military confrontation. We join the voices of many respected religious leaders and others in Iraq who have been appealing for respect for the rule of law and for an early, peaceful resolution of the crisis."'

http://www.shire.net/big.brother/unatroc.htm

"Belgian troops roasted a child over a fire. The photograph that was published showed the Belgian troops grinning.

Belgian troops forced fed a Somali child a mixture of salt water, vomit, and worms.

UN troops raped the Somalis.

Italian troops applied electrodes to the hands and genitals of a naked Somali soldier.

Somalis were denied food and water, had the soles of their feet burned, and were hurled against razor wire.

A Canadian parachute unit tortured and then killed a Somali teenager and then photographed themselves by the body."

http://www.wakeupaustralia.net/the_united_nations.htm

"UN mortar and machine guns killed many Katangese people, including including women, children babies. Elizabethville Hospital, clearly marked as a Hospital was bombed. Forty six medical Drs. signed a statement stating that United Nations troops murdered civilians and fired on clearly marked Red Cross Ambulances giving first aid to the wounded. Maternity Hospital, schools, mental institutions, homes, children’s nurseries were bombed, and strafed, and bombed by UN aircraft and artillery. Unarmed fleeing civilians were machine gunned. (The video) shows shocking scenes of many grossly mutilated, burned bodies. Then the United Nations bombed industrial plants, roads, freight trains, water supplies, farms.
Morgues were filled to capacity. The United Nations spared no effort to crush tiny, defenceless Katanga. And they did.

All this was in clear breach of the United Nations Charter which states: to practice tolerance, to live together in peace and security, and violence and armed force shall not be used."

- - - - - -

So what's the deal? I'm sure everyone has heard of these things before and I'm sure that the UN apologists have already dispelled it or shifted the blame elsewhere - probably to the US.

Now I really don't give to flipping flops about what the UN has done in the past. UN apologists who don't ignore it will probably plead "Well it was so long ago, it doesn't matter anymore!" - the age old adage of the murderer. Other UN apologists will say "The US does it all the time, so it doesn't matter." - another age old adage for you, two wrongs don't make a right.

Now for the crux of it. If you bothered to take the time to read the first cut and paste, you'll notice that a UN cronie is pleading for a peaceful end, urging the people involved to avoid striking protected buildings, etc. etc. While he didn't say it directly, it was only dierected at the US. That's beside the direct point, but a point can be derived from it - which I'll get to later.

With the last two cut and pastes in mind, how is the UN in any place to suggest or demand that anyone plays fair? I won't beat this to death because it should be quite clear. The UN is just showing that it violates its own Charter then expects signator nations to oblige with the same Charter. It violates human rights, then expects signator nations to oblige by human rights mandates. The UN calls on the US not to hit a mosque, which would be absolute suicide for US forces, but the UN itself has apparently bombed at least one hospital. Now the UN apologists will cry, "It's just one hospital!" Well I'm sorry UN lap dogs, that doesn't matter. The UN is just demonstrating its duplicitous nature in its dealings with the US.

Now before you start raving about US atrocities, UN lap dogs, I'll be the first to admit we've carried out our own atrocities in clear violation of international law. But so have you. As far as I'm concerned, that negates anything you could ever say. You can't preach to us about peace when you yourselves haven't exactly paved the way for peace. So who are you to talk?

Now concerning Fallujah and Najaf, there are lots of pretty issues to deal with. The US has been condemned for using 'heavy handed tactics' in Fallujah. It's totally true. In fact, we've got a proud history of being maliciously violent in combat. I'll give you a few examples of the US fighting spirit:

1) When the 1st MEF arrived in Europe in WWI, Ludendorff was launching his brilliant Spring Offensive. A French soldier, in full retreat, encountered a group of Marines and told them to retreat. To that, a Marine Colonel replied, "Retreat? Hell, we just got here."

2) In Belleau Wood a Marine Brigade held off four German Divisions. Once again, a foreign soldier suggest that the Marines should pull back and entrench itself. To that, a Marine Captain said, "We're not digging in. The Marines will hold where they stand." The stand was so valliant that Bois Belleau was renamed Bois de la Brigade la Marine

3) In an offensive launched by the AEF, the Germans became disheartened when they would machine gun US soldiers and those units in the offensive wouldn't break. This is one place where the AEF began to earn the nick name "Devil Dogs".

4) When peace broke out in Europe, a group of US officer cadets training in France fell delerious and began throwing live grenades at each other. Twelve men were wounded.

5) In WWII, a CB bulldozer operator used his bulldozer to bury Japanese soldiers in their foxholes.

6) The infamous reply of the General at Bastogne "Nuts".

Now these are just some of the examples of US overkill in any given situation. It is, as far as I can tell, the very nature of US soldiers to be brutal in combat. With that in mind, did the UN actively do anything to stop the US from invading Iraq? Nothing as far as I can remember. Knowing full well that we don't do finese, the world essentially allowed us to walk in. Sure, I'll admit the US shouldn't even be there, but the world is also responsible for not really trying to stop us.

If you go back to the first quote, you'll find a UN whore calling on the US to honor a shrine, religious buildings, etc. Are the militants inside those religious buildings honoring them? Are they treating those mosques and shrines with respect? Good lord, as far as the UN is concerned, it's okay for Side A to use a religious building to hold and store weapons, but it's wrong for Side B to even wink at the same building. It's hypocricy to the nth. I'll say it again, it would be suicide to attack those mosques. But what the hell is the deal here?

The Democrats and Europeans think the UN should take the leading role in Iraq. That's just about the biggest pile of crap I've ever seen. Their headquarters gets bombed and they pull out faster than Frenchman in retreat. Then, following their spineless manner, they "Condemn this attack in the strongest possible terms" and do nothing else. The UN doesn't have the balls for it. So it's rather clear that the UN can't do the job - so why the hell would anyone even suggest it? It is my pompous opinion that Europe and the UN can only offer vain suggestions knowing full well they can't back anything up.

Now everyone seems to know that the UN is as impotent as an eighty year old man - pun intended - but they still want to keep it around. In my part of the world, if a tree dies you cut it down. If an animal is dying, you shoot it. You don't keep dead trees or dying animals around. It's just stupid. Yet, for reasons that still confuse me, the world still wants the UN. There are some good reasons for it I guess. China and Russia only have to pay about 2% of the operating costs of the UN, yet get to sit on the Security Council ad infinitum. [Yes, I know they are permanent members, so shut up you UN lap dogs]. It's nice! China can kill 1.2 million people in Tibet, pay about 1.2% of the UN Operating costs, and keep its bloated seat on the Security Council. Russia can pay about .8% of the operating costs, bomb Grozny for four months, shell it for another three, then murder everything in sight, and keep its nice little seat on the Security Council, no questions asked. Meanwhile, the US who pays upwards of 23% of the operating costs takes an offensive in Iraq, and the whole world is ready to take up arms in revolution.

Hypocricy.

The point of this rant, which was longer than I had planned, is this: Piss on the UN.

That's what you get when your soldiers are bored.

I'd like to see a picture of the Belgian roast party, for old time's sake.

tag, read later.

That's what you get when your soldiers are bored.

I'd like to see a picture of the Belgian roast party, for old time's sake.

I thought Fat Bastard was Scottish? :P

The world is responsible for not trying to stop the only remaining superpower from doing whatever it wants?

How were they supposed to do this?

If I remember correctly, the protests around the globe to stop this war were the largest in history.

Many countries were against it.

The UN was against it.

There were verbal arguments made but who in their right mind would go againt the US in a military action?

The UN was against it.

Thank you for saying that. Every little thing like that only furthers my cause. The UN is expected to stop aggressor nations through a number of methods, including active military intervention. In fact, the UN Charter is quite clear about that.

But the problem is this: since the US is on the Security Council, the UN is powerless to stop it because we can just veto any resolution against us. That's a bigger problem than some might realize. If China wanted to take Taiwan, they could just veto any resolution brought about. Without a UN resolution to protect Taiwan, the US would have to go it alone. And what about Russian offensives into Chechnya?

http://eng.kavkaz.memo.ru/newstext/engnews/id/650553.html

I had the great displeasure of seeing a Russian man being decapitated while he was still very much alive, arms moving, blood gushing. I have seen pictures of Grozny that looked more like Berlin or Dresden in WWII than a modern city. What did the UN do? Piddle around, debate, play spin the bottle? THe UN was established with three nations on the Security Council that are famous for their militant nature. Since only one veto is needed to block a resolution, and three of the five have no reservations about going to war, it becomes a problem, doesn't it? Why Russia, the US, China, the UK, and France? Japan fought along side the Entente in WWI, as did Italy.

But a better question is why France and the UK are still on it. They have lost the military potency they once had. Or why are the US, China, and Russia still on the Security Council since that triumvirate has been accused of violating international laws, human rights, and in the case of Russia and China, a few more heinous accusations.

Then you consider that Libya chairs the Human Rights Committee, and things just get absurd. Add in the fact that the US was booted from that, and things just get insane. Consider that Libya did in fact support terrorism. Yes, the US might not be France when it comes to Human Rights, but neither is Libya. It's pure absurdity.

But, UN lap dog, why not address the other accusations I brought? Why do you choose the simplest one, the one that is easiest to answer and avoid? Why do the abuses of the UN in Africa go ignored, while when the US hasn't even yet done anything to the Mosque in Najaf, why is it that the US is damn near condemned? Why is this double standard allowed to go on? Why do you UN lap dogs ignore UN atrocities? Is it because you think you work for peace?

Lies!

Did you know the UN Charter flies in the face of the US Constitution? Not only that, the UN should be sued for plagiarization. "We the People of these United States" is what our Preamble says. "We the People of these United Nations." is what the UN Preamble says.

http://www.freedomdomain.com/un/un01.html

Read up. Find that the UN is violating the highest US laws.

Or how about this: The President is sworn to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," As long as the UN is violating our Constitution, as long as we actually do, to some extent, answer to the UN, the President is not able to fully preserve, protect, and defend that most sacred document.

As long as the US, fallaciously, belongs to the UN, our very Constitution is being threatened by international power brokers, whores of the globe, and other groups and peoples who would, intentionally or not, undermine the very Rule of Law that people like me hold dear.

My Constitution, not some Charter only held up by a bunch of European power-brokers, is supreme. The Constitution is above the UN Charter.

Now if you UN lap dogs have any rebuttals, I'd love to hear them because it is a joy to drag you into a situation in which you will contradict yourself.

Are your rant against the UN limited to the security councel or the whole organization?

If it is the latter I'd like to see what you have against UNIDO to begin with. Hell, why don't take the whole UN a part and critize each and every suborganization of it. That would be interesting.

I'll meet the challenge.

Just let me use the bathroom first.

you forgot to put on that list of historical US military "overkills" the Marine stand at the Battle of Chosen in Korea when the Marines were surrounded. A reporter saw the Marines shift to the opposite direction, and asked the commander, "Are we retreating?" "Hell No," he replied. "We are attacking in the other direction!" Over 60% of the Marines and soldiers at that battle suffered from frostbite, were killed, caputred, or wounded.

And people wonder why thay call Korea the forgotten war.

My Constitution, not some Charter only held up by a bunch of European power-brokers, is supreme. The Constitution is above the UN Charter.

Now if you UN lap dogs have any rebuttals, I'd love to hear them because it is a joy to drag you into a situation in which you will contradict yourself.

Actually, that's in debate. Here's a history lesson for you.

The Supreme Court, in Miranda vs. Arizona, said the following: "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." This argues that the Constitution is above the UN Charter. However, the same court in Sei Fujii vs. California, said: "The Charter [of the United Nations] has become the Supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or the laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." So, if the top court in the land is fond of contradicting itself, then the rest of us should be able to expect a little leeway.

Secretary of State John Foster Dulles said, on April 12, 1952, "Treaties make International law and also make domestic law. Under our Constitution, treaties become the supreme law of the land. They are indeed more supreme than ordinary laws, for Congressional laws are invalid if they do not conform to the Constitution, where as treaty law can overide the Constitution." And Carl Rix, a former President of the American Bar Association, described the eroding of Constitutional supremacy in testimony before the Senate on May 11, 1955. He said Congress is no longer only subject to the Constitution and, in fact, it's only mandate is to further human rights in the fields of civic, political, economic, social and cultural arenas, as outlined in Articles 55 and 56 of the UN Charter. Congress now may extend itself beyond the powers granted to it in the Constitution to rule on these areas so long as they promote advancement of human rights in them.

Currently, three Supreme Court justices have said they will take into account the laws of other countries when deciding law interpretations within our own country. However, our own government is violating our own Constitution by writing laws that invade our privacy without due process, yet no one complains. We are also shipping jobs overseas in alignment with UN policy and have gone into areas such as Viet Nam, Korea and the first Gulf war without Congressional approval, but as police actions taken under the auspices of the UN.

On an interesting side note, David Holcberg, senior writer for the Ayn Rand institute, argued on December 17th, 2002, that Bush was undermining the Constitution of the United States by theoretically waiting for UN approval to attack terrorist organizations and regiems. From his press release: "...by surrendering to the United Nations the responsibility to judge whether or not Iraq is a threat that warrants going to war—by placing our self-defense at the mercy of an international body full of appeasers and dictators—President Bush has undermined America's security.
"He, like his father in the Gulf War, is helping to establish the most dangerous of precedents: he is substituting the U.N. Charter for the U.S. Constitution—as the supreme law of our nation."

Now, of course, I'm not sure what else you would expect a senior writer for they Ayn Rand institute to say, but it is interesting that, by his reasoning, not only has Bush undermined the US Constitution, but also the UN Charter, at different points in his political career.

The final answer is, you may think what you like, but the facts are one huge muddled morass of contradictions and circumventions that it would take "Deep Thought" to finally puzzle out. In order for an organization like the UN to work, there must be a certain precedence for it's rules and laws. Yet, in order to preserve individual liberty and national sovergnty, the UN must be careful to refrain from making demands that interfere with national rights of determination. If this is successful or not is anyone's guess, but it's not as clear cut an argument as "My Constitution is better than your Charter" and it flies in the face of reason to think it is.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/spacedog/prison.gif

Made by Vampiremonkeysonspeed from b3ta (http://www.b3ta.com)

That Wakeupaustralia has had 740 hits in its illustrious career.

I'm not sure why the UN doing bad things makes the US all wonderful.

I'm with Plato on this one. Those who want to rule are the last people we should allow to rule.

I'm not sure why the UN doing bad things makes the US all wonderful.

I'm with Plato on this one. Those who want to rule are the last people we should allow to rule.Thinking about it, it not that surprising that the people in power so often seem to be meglomaniacs.

Here's another thing for you guys to chew on. It is an all too common copout to blame the US. In fact, I'd say it is the most common copout. When all else fails, there must be some way to blame the US, it is reasoned by the UN lap dogs. Rwanda is a prime example of shifting the blame away from the UN and onto the US. It is not the only example, by far, but because of the scope and violence seen in Rwanda I would surmise that the UN and its lap dogs have no choice but to blame the US. After all, they are the ones that are supposed to uphold peace, to restore order, and to protect human rights. The UN was created for those purposes, not the US. The UN would have the world believe that blame falls entirely on the US. This route of escape is all too common in the UN and the rest of the world.

I will gladly assert that the UN and its lap dogs must bear most of the responsibility for failing the people of Rwanda. Yes, I will admit that the US has blood on its hands, but to assert, as so many do, that the US shoulders all the responsible is nothing more than vain finger pointing. It is nothing more than attempts to hide from the shame of such blunders. You can easily be reminded of Lady Macbeth saying "Out, out damned spot." Like Lady Macbeth constantly washing her hands, so the UN constantly shifts the blame. It is sad that people on both side of the fence - though I think I'm the only one who will blame the US - are deceived by their respective governments or organizations. For too long I allowed myself to be deceived by the lies and deceit put out by the government. It was shameful for me to read that my own government was partly responsible for such atrocities. But the UN lap dogs aren't just content with partial responsibility. They are only happy when the US is shackled from head to toe in guilt. To that end, the UN and its lap dogs will hide as best they can.

And now I intend to expose the heinous behavior of the UN to a few people that aren't ready to listen. It is hateful to think that your government, your nation could have such blood on its hands - and it was quite troubling to me - but I won't allow my nation to be held totally responsible for things that were in many cases not its fault. Do I expect the UN lap dogs to read, learn, or understand? Not in the slightest. I have come to expect that the UN lap dogs won't listen to anything aside from their own double talk, their own lies, and their own deceit. In this post I will hopefully show that the US, UK, France, Russia, China, the UN, and indeed the entire world is at fault. But, above all else, I hope to show that the UN must bear most of that responsibility.

The first roots of fault can be given to Belgium. They took over modern Rwanda after the failings of the German forces in Africa in WWI. In 1933 they conducted an exhaustive census that catalogued just who was Hutu and who was Tutsi, based on facial features - much like what Joseph Mengele did in WWII with the Jews. Following the Census, the Belgians issued cards labeling just who was Hutu and who was Tutsi. This, though not malicious, made such future massacres more possible. It gave the Hutus certainty on just who to kill. July 1st, 1962 saw the Hutus come to power, having seized it from the Tutsi and their racial, or to be more accurate, ethnic apartheid.

Just 29 years later, the Soviet Union collapsed and the United States emerged from the Cold War. It might not seem important, but after 46 years of Cold War, the United States had developed a certain way of viewing the world. Though victorious, the US continued to look at everything from a strategic point of view. The best way to surmise this is by saying that if it wasn't in the strategic field of vision of the US, it simply didn't matter. As far as the US was concerned, Rwanda didn't matter. We had no vested strategic interest in Rwanda and so paid very little attention to it. That is no excuse.

After Somalia, neither the US nor the UN wanted to get involved in another dangerous situation. Congress pressured the US, while the UN was afraid that its next step might be its last. This was the general feeling at the UN. Bloodied by Mogadishu and with a belligerent US on its back, the UN wasn't about to take and major steps to do anything certain.

The RPF [Rwandan Patriotic Front] requested observers, and even an international force. To this, Boutros-Ghali replied that the UN "refused on the grounds that the UN would only consider such an operation and engage in a planning exercise after the parties had signed the final agreements." From the beginning, it would seem, at least some parties involved in what would follow wanted peace. However, as you can discern from what Mr. Boutros-Ghali said, it is quite clear that the UN, by itself, was unwilling to do anything outside the realm of rules and procedures. It would prove true that later on, even when the violence was quite clear, the UN was not willing to break with rules and procedures. It was so bureaucratic that rules and procedures were placed above the value of human life.

Nonetheless, Brigadier General Romeo Dallaire was chosen to head up UNAMIR, the operation to secure a cease-fire, and negotiate things. Dallaire was probably the only man in the whole scenario that was willing to do anything about the violence when it finally broke out. General Dallaire was willing to take the decisive actions that would have prevented the genocide, or at least slowed it down. Unfortunately, as is often the case with the UN and its operations, Field Commanders are abandoned by the very people that deployed them. Dallaire could have been the hero of Rwanda, or his name could have passed into obscurity. Either way would have been better. But, as we shall see, Dallaire was bound, to the point of obscenity, by the rules and procedures of the very United Nations that deployed him.

On January 11th 1994, Dallaire received a cable from a credible informant that members of the Hutu elite were gearing up for a wave of violence. The detailed message informed Dallaire of the intimate details of the plans, the intentions, and exactly how efficient they could be. The informant told Dallaire that the militias could kill up to 1,000 people in a mere twenty minutes. To this, the UN offered the response to Dallaire: "We have carefully reviewed the situation in light of your MIR-79 [coding of the January 11th communication]. We cannot agree to the operation contemplated in paragraph 7 of your cable, as it clearly goes beyond the mandate entrusted to UNAMIR under resolution 873 (1993)."

From the beginning, the UN was lost in space. Booh-Booh said in a February 2nd cable that UNAMIR was "receiving more and more credible and confirmed information that the armed militias of the parties are stockpiling and may possibly be preparing to distribute the arms to their supporters. Each day of delay in authorizing deterrent arms recovery operations will result in an ever deteriorating security situation and may, if arms continue to be distributed, result in the inability of UNAMIR to carry out its mandate in all respects." The UN is starting to get a mind as to what is going on, but as we shall see later, by the time it acts, the genocide is already over. Some will attempt to blame the US for this, but the facts don't tell that story.

On March 1st, Boutros-Ghali met a special envoy sent by President Habyarimana. Even though Dallaire was sending constant messages that untold violence was coming, Boutros-Ghali didn't so much as raise the issue of human rights violations with the special envoy.

By April 7th, the genocide had begun.

Hours after the plane was shot down, Dallaire knew that trouble was brewing. He realized that with more forces, he could stop the killing before it really began. To that end Dallaire sent a message saying, "Give me the means and I can do more". On April 10th, the reply was "nobody is interested in that." When he appealed for five thousand troops, the same message was returned. Here again we see that Dallaire was willing to take the need actions, but the spineless UN was impotent. If Dallaire had been given those forces, if the UN was willing to take action, 800,000 lives could have been saved.

When it was quite clear to rational people, the non-bureaucrats, Waly Bacre Ndiaye was so callous as to say "The question whether the massacres described above may be termed genocide has often been raised. It is not for the Special Rapporteur to pass judgment at this stage." What kind of organization isn't even willing to use a term? Why is it that their Field Commander sends them messages, sometimes three a day, concerning the growing tide of violence, but the UN can't even use the term that fits? Are they so bureaucratic that the use of words is heinous? The UN is so bound by the morass of rules and procedures that it can't even use a word. In light of the violence, this cowardice is obscene.

"I didn't know much of the Rwandan language. But they taught me that the word minuar [the French acronym for UNAMIR] actually has a meaning in Kinyarwandan. The word means that your lips are moving, but they don't really say anything. And that's what we were from the beginning. After a few weeks, the extremists knew we had no power." - Colonel Luc Marchal, head of the Belgian contingent. When entering into a violent situation, you don't want your soldiers and officers to think they are powerless. They must be empowered to take the needed steps to secure a resolution to the violence. But as you can see, the forces in the field were already feeling abandoned by the UN.

The UN is one of the most heinous supply squanderers of all time. It is clear now that UNAMIR was not getting the supplies it needed to carry out the minimal requirements, let alone the massive operation that could have deterred the genocide. One report claims that UNAMIR had trouble getting eating utensils and flashlights. When the flashlights finally arrived, they had no batteries. Dallaire was told there was no money for batteries. Later, Dallaire didn't even have paper to make out reports. Now how exactly was Dallaire supposed to do anything about the spreading violence when his overlords wouldn't even give him the most basic supplies?

Iqbal Riza sent Dallaire a reminder stating that "You should make every effort not to compromise your impartiality or to act beyond your mandate." It seems that preventing genocide takes a back seat to following the rules of a bloated bureaucracy. By this time, Riza at least knew on paper that the violence was out of control. Despite this, he was willing to insist that Dallaire and the UN avoid breaking any rules. In no way, it seems, was human life more important than the rulebook.

The secretary-general, and indeed the entire Secretariat, was missing in action when things began to get hot. Boutros-Ghali chose to stay abroad when the plane carrying President Habyarimana was shot down. The reports Boutros-Ghali did give were by proxy and mediated.

Later, UN staff would concede that they did know the dangers of the situation and the possibility of genocide. Iqbal Riza confessed later that, "Possibly we did not give all the details [to the Secretariat]...And if we did not, I really can't tell you what happened then to prevent us from giving those details." Is that just a little odd, or is it just me? Now Iqbal wasn't from the US, so it seems rather confusing to me that the US is held completely responsible for the atrocities.

"France played patron to the Rwandan government and was close to the Francophile secretary-general. Although France supported the Arusha Accords, it refused Belgium's early request to field an intervention force (on the grounds that it would be targeted by the RPF) and in the council attempted to project an air of impartiality (all the while ferrying out Habyarimana's entourage and various Hutu elite associated with the genocide). France and Boutros-Ghali were quite chummy; if the secretary general was going to listen to a permanent member [of the Security Council] it would be France (and not the United States, which he bitterly resented). Moreover, there is some evidence that France coached Boutros-Ghali's presentations to the council in order to elicit a verdict against intervention." Wrote Michael Barret in his book [i]Eyewitness to a Genocide: Rwanda and the United Nations I'm just going to let you people chew on that one.

If Boutros-Ghali had shared Dallaire's messages with the Security Council and tried to get intervention things could have been prevented. Ambassador Gambari said "If the secretary-general had made the pitch [for intervention] then it would have given us moral backing, it might really have changed things." However, the messages that Boutros-Ghali did receive he tended to sit on. The information he handed to the Security Council was vague, ambiguous, and certainly didn't include words like 'genocide'. Boutros-Ghali, it seems, was either ignorant or apathetic. Either way, his head should have been on the chopping block. As secretary-general, Boutros-Ghali had the power to influence what the Security Council would discuss, and influence what discussions could bring about. But instead of using his power, he sat on it and watched people die.

Instead of bolstering UNAMIR and Dallaire, the UN voted on April 21st to reduce UNAMIR. On April 22nd, the day after the Security Council voted to reduce UNAMIR, Boutros-Ghali was already attempting to cover his own ignorance, timidness, or impotence. He said that the downing of President Habyarimana's plane had "reawakened deep rooted ethnic hatreds, which have plunged Rwanda in the past and which have again led to the massacres of innocent civilians on a massive scale." Boutros-Ghali was so lost. I'm not sure if he even knew what was going on. It is in the least odd that after allowing UNAMIR to be reduced that Boutros-Ghali would so readily condemn an action he had to have supported.

It wasn't until May 4th – nearly a month after the genocide began - that, on Nightline, that Boutros-Ghali actually used the word 'genocide' publicly. This is well after the violence erupted - by May 4th, nearly 200,000 men, women, and children had already been murdered. Instead of being the strong leader that is expected of his title, he was already steps behind the Security Council and lost in his own delusional world. What kind of leader is that? He, like so many at the time, was afraid to use the word genocide. It is atrocious.

The Czech Ambassador Karel Kovanda blasted the council for wasting such time. But a draft statement that followed was as much a waste of time as anything that came before. "The horrors of Rwanda's killing fields have few precedents in the recent history of the world. The Security Council reaffirms that the systematic killing of any ethnic group, with the intent to destroy it in whole or in part constitutes an act of genocide as defined by relevant positions of international law...The Council further points out that an important body of international law exists that deals with perpetrators of genocide" With that in mind, I'd like to know where the hell these people come from. What kind of organization is the UN that it would condemn something, but fritter away time on confirming that something is illegal? You don't do that! If someone was threatening my life and the cop took the time to refer the criminal to the City Ordinance or Law, I'd be more than a little upset. It's obscene to the highest. But in his defense, Karel Kovanda was a proponent of direct intervention. His voice was lost, it would seem, in the bureaucracy.

Jose Ayala-Lasso, the first UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, said "the situation in Rwanda can be characterized as a human rights tragedy." He, for his own part, threatened the most vile course of action the UN could take: the Commission on Human Rights might consider investigating human rights violations. Is that really the best the UN could do in light of the genocide? Investigations? Panels, committees? Is that the group of people you trust to lead you into peace?

One UN staffer argued that the violence was a result of the domination of the Hutu majority by the domineering Tutsi minority. It seems the fact that Hutus had governed the nation of Rwanda since July 1, 1962 was lost on that staffer.

Now some have accused the US of blocking every attempt to intervene in the crisis. That is somewhat true, but not entirely. Boutros-Ghali, after it was too late, urged on the creation of UNAMIR II - a force to be comprised of 5,500 peacekeepers. It would arrive in three stages. However, it was clear that UNAMIR II wouldn't arrive nearly soon enough. The US knew this. You can't just throw 5,500 troops into a combat zone over night. But let's look at it anyway. Boutros-Ghali accused the US, and the US alone, of not being willing to supply cargo aircraft to airlift the troops. Boutros-Ghali didn't see the fact that no one was willing to donate the 5,500 peacekeepers. The US can't airlift what wasn't there. To further the problem, because UNAMIR was so weakened, it couldn't even keep the airfield at Kagili secure. So just how was the US to airlift troops that didn’t yet exist into an airfield that was, at best, dangerous? UNAMIR II was a bust before it even got off the ground. By the time it arrived in force, the genocide was well over. I fail to see how the US was responsible for that.

Other proposals were put on the table. Some advocates, such as Ambassador Keating from New Zealand advocated a direct military intervention. In short, UN peacekeepers would move in and begin shooting at whoever didn't stop shooting. The US wasn't willing to do that after Somalia - but neither was the UN. The UN couldn't get support for such a bold plan. France and Belgium argued for a second type of operation. They advocated that UN peacekeepers should move in and set up safe zones for civilians. This plan was probably the best, but far from certain. Finally, the US put its own plan on the table. It urged for the creation of safe zones on the borders of Rwanda for those who could get to safety. It was a flawed plan, to be sure, but it was more realistic than UNAMIR II - which was a total blunder. Strategically, only the Franco-Belgian plan, or the US plan were viable, or even possible given the fears of reliving another Mogadishu.

The French did manage to deploy some forces. They did manage to deploy a force and set up safe zones for civilians. However, they didn't separate the two factions in the camps and they didn't disarm the combatants. They would house refugees with rogues. Their intentions, I don't think, were sincere. They had supported the very groups that were carrying out the genocide. They did nothing to disarm them, despite having the forces in the area. In truth, the French intervention in Rwanda probably stemmed from their ongoing fear of Anglo-Saxon conquest. They had already lost most of their holdings to England or other powers, so the prospect of losing yet another piece of land was a bit unsettling to the French. Sincere? Maybe.

By the time it was all over, Boutros-Ghali addressed Rwanda personally - in a very conspicuous bid to try to clean the blood from his hands, saying "I was the first to use the word genocide in the international public opinion. I did not succeed. I encountered far greater difficulties than in other situations which were not so serious but which called for assistance." Lies and deceit to the very end.

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) -- Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Friday opened a memorial conference on the 1994 Rwanda genocide by accepting institutional and personal blame for the slaughter of 800,000 civilians that was initially ignored by world leaders.

"The international community is guilty of sins of omission," said Annan, who was head of the United Nations peacekeeping agency at the time and had asked countries to provide troops.

"I believed at the time that I was doing my best. But I realized after the genocide that there was more that I could and should have done to sound the alarm and rally support," Annan said in a speech to open the "Memorial Conference on the Rwanda Genocide."

It was not the first time that the secretary-general had criticized the United Nations and his own mistakes, but he said the painful memory of Rwanda and ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the mid-1990s "has influenced much of my thinking, and many of my actions" as head of the world body.

The small central African country was plunged into ethnic butchery in April 1994 after a plane carrying President Juvenal Habyarimana was shot down over Kigali.

Some 800,000 Tutsis and Hutu moderates were slain in about 100 days by Hutu extremists and their followers, armed with machetes, garden hoes and spiked clubs. They were spurred on by hateful radio broadcasts.
The genocide was halted when Tutsi-led rebels overthrew the Hutu extremists, many of whom fled to neighboring Zaire, now called the Democratic Republic of Congo. The rebels went on to form Rwanda's government.

In April 2000, the U.N. Security Council admitted responsibility for failing to stop the Rwanda killings. A U.N.-commissioned report in Dec. 1999 accused the world body of being timid, disorganized and misguided before the massacres and failing to intervene once the killing had started.

- - - - - - -

Let me get this right. The US abuses prisoners in Iraq. That is wrong and was clearly in violation of International Law, and laws of the United States. But within a matter of a week, I would think, the UN is already gearing up to launch a commission into the violation of human rights. However, when it came to Rwanda it took a full five and half years just to launch a similar commission by the UN, and a full six years for the Security Council to admit it failed. And Kofi Annan got the Centennial Nobel Peace prize, despite having admitted that he didn't do enough to stop the murder of 800,000 people.

Then how about the fact that Libya, which sponsored the terrorist action that brought down PanAm 188 among other things, chairs the Human Rights Commission, but the US gets booted off the same Commission. Now that just seems a little more than fishy to me. But I'm sure you UN lap dogs will have some queer justification for it all. I mean, there must be some logical reason - and an excusable reason - that the UN watches 800,000 people die then waits six years to accept responsibility, but immediately launches a witch hunt into the US actions in Iraq. Were we justified? No. The US was clearly in the wrong, but the UN is showing it's Great Double Standard once again.

Now I don't remember if the UN ever condemned Iraq for the abuse of its own people, though it's quite possible. If they did actually condemn Iraq, I'd sure like to know about it. If they didn't, we end up with this: What the US did was still wrong, but the UN, in not condemning Iraq for much more heinous crimes, is once again showing the Great Double Standard. I know that in 1973 (if memory serves) the UN tried to resolve border tensions between Iraq and Iran. Well that certainly worked. Instead of a world war, Iraq and Iran fought in one of the bloodiest eight years of human history.

It's just one of those things I guess. Each day that passes leaves me with that much more hatred of the UN. I can't wait for the day when UN peacekeepers parade down my street. That, my friends, that will be the day.

Now I don't remember if the UN ever condemned Iraq for the abuse of its own people, though it's quite possible. If they did actually condemn Iraq, I'd sure like to know about it. If they didn't, we end up with this: What the US did was still wrong, but the UN, in not condemning Iraq for much more heinous crimes, is once again showing the Great Double Standard. I know that in 1973 (if memory serves) the UN tried to resolve border tensions between Iraq and Iran. Well that certainly worked. Instead of a world war, Iraq and Iran fought in one of the bloodiest eight years of human history.

It's interesting to note that at the outbreak of the Iraq / Iran when the advantage was clearly in Iraq's favour and theirs forces had made reasonable advances into Iranian territory the UNSC called for an immediete ceastion of hostilities, but what it did not do was call for Iraq to withdraw to internationally recognised borders.

Fascinating post you've started, I've always said the UN was flawed to the core. It's about time somebody readdressed the balance.

I don't recall the US being blamed for the Rwanda debacle and I think your blustering, derogatory writing style isn't doing you any favours (you could speech-write for Stalin).

Still, a lot to think about.

(you could speech-write for Stalin).

Bwahahahahaha. I'm stealing this. Thanks Eco! :D

[...]Why Russia, the US, China, the UK, and France? Japan fought along side the Entente in WWI, as did Italy.

But a better question is why France and the UK are still on it. They have lost the military potency they once had. Or why are the US, China, and Russia still on the Security Council since that triumvirate has been accused of violating international laws, human rights, and in the case of Russia and China, a few more heinous accusations.

Italy and Japan were on the wrong side of WW2, a more recent and significant conflict. The UK and France are still awesomely potent military powers: each has an independent nuclear arsenal, after all. Which in essence is the qualification for a Security Council chair. Israel won't admit to theirs, and India and Pakistan are only newly nuclear and have other things on their minds right now.

Then you consider that Libya chairs the Human Rights Committee, and things just get absurd. Add in the fact that the US was booted from that, and things just get insane. Consider that Libya did in fact support terrorism. Yes, the US might not be France when it comes to Human Rights, but neither is Libya. It's pure absurdity.

The chairs of these committees rotate through the member nations. Libya is merely the current chair. And the US was kicked off because of its refusal to stop executing minors, IIRC.

[...] the UN should be sued for plagiarization. "We the People of these United States" is what our Preamble says. "We the People of these United Nations." is what the UN Preamble says.

The US Constitution is public domain, so sue all you like. Anyway, if Iraq is set up as a democracy, and decides to base its constitution on that of the USA, would you begrudge them the use of some of your nation's best ideas? Imitation, after all, is the sincerest form of flattery.

Anyhoo... you make long posts. I'll respond to your general dissatisfaction with the UN thus: it is the sum of its parts. The UN is not some separate entity. It's made up of its member states. If it has its failings, then those are the failings of the individual member states. Manifestly, the UN is imperfect, and then some; but it has undoubtedly prevented and ameliorated conflicts all over the planet since its inception, simply by providing a platform for international discussion. Is it worth it? Impossible to say -- but it's worth remembering that we all came through the Cold War substantially intact and non-radioactive.

All human interactions, especially on the level of international politics, are flawed and imperfect. The UN passed numerous resolutions against Iraq (remember? the ones used as a figleaf to cover the naked agression of teh UK and USA?). It has also passed resolutions against Israel and many other nations, which also go unprosecuted. Why? Because at this basic level, power comes from the barrel of a gun -- and the UN doesn't have any guns. The best it can hope for is to get some on loan from those member states willing to put forward the men and materiel for not too long and nowhere too dangerous.

So... the UN -- a human institution, made up of squabbling politicians and career diplomats -- is flawed. Big surprise. Is it better than no UN at all? Probably. Do we want to find out? No, we really don't.

(you could speech-write for Stalin).

Bwahahahahaha. I'm stealing this. Thanks Eco! :D

*blushes*

My pleasure, Berk- oh. Your name doesn't abbreviate that nicely...

(you could speech-write for Stalin).

Bwahahahahaha. I'm stealing this. Thanks Eco! :D

*blushes*

My pleasure, Berk- oh. Your name doesn't abbreviate that nicely...

Yes, this has been pointed out to me. Oh well, live, learn and have people giggle at you when they say your name. That's the circle of life. :D

[...]Why Russia, the US, China, the UK, and France? Japan fought along side the Entente in WWI, as did Italy.

But a better question is why France and the UK are still on it. They have lost the military potency they once had. Or why are the US, China, and Russia still on the Security Council since that triumvirate has been accused of violating international laws, human rights, and in the case of Russia and China, a few more heinous accusations.

Italy and Japan were on the wrong side of WW2, a more recent and significant conflict. The UK and France are still awesomely potent military powers: each has an independent nuclear arsenal, after all. Which in essence is the qualification for a Security Council chair. Israel won't admit to theirs, and India and Pakistan are only newly nuclear and have other things on their minds right now.

Then you consider that Libya chairs the Human Rights Committee, and things just get absurd. Add in the fact that the US was booted from that, and things just get insane. Consider that Libya did in fact support terrorism. Yes, the US might not be France when it comes to Human Rights, but neither is Libya. It's pure absurdity.

The chairs of these committees rotate through the member nations. Libya is merely the current chair. And the US was kicked off because of its refusal to stop executing minors, IIRC.

[...] the UN should be sued for plagiarization. "We the People of these United States" is what our Preamble says. "We the People of these United Nations." is what the UN Preamble says.

The US Constitution is public domain, so sue all you like. Anyway, if Iraq is set up as a democracy, and decides to base its constitution on that of the USA, would you begrudge them the use of some of your nation's best ideas? Imitation, after all, is the sincerest form of flattery.

Anyhoo... you make long posts. I'll respond to your general dissatisfaction with the UN thus: it is the sum of its parts. The UN is not some separate entity. It's made up of its member states. If it has its failings, then those are the failings of the individual member states. Manifestly, the UN is imperfect, and then some; but it has undoubtedly prevented and ameliorated conflicts all over the planet since its inception, simply by providing a platform for international discussion. Is it worth it? Impossible to say -- but it's worth remembering that we all came through the Cold War substantially intact and non-radioactive.

All human interactions, especially on the level of international politics, are flawed and imperfect. The UN passed numerous resolutions against Iraq (remember? the ones used as a figleaf to cover the naked agression of teh UK and USA?). It has also passed resolutions against Israel and many other nations, which also go unprosecuted. Why? Because at this basic level, power comes from the barrel of a gun -- and the UN doesn't have any guns. The best it can hope for is to get some on loan from those member states willing to put forward the men and materiel for not too long and nowhere too dangerous.

So... the UN -- a human institution, made up of squabbling politicians and career diplomats -- is flawed. Big surprise. Is it better than no UN at all? Probably. Do we want to find out? No, we really don't.

Funny, the UN Charter as I read it just says who will be on the Security Council - nothing about conditions thereof. It was just another case of 'to the victor the spoils'. Nuclear power doesn't have a thing to do with it - after all, in 1945 there was only one nuclear power. You would say that the UK and France are still potent military powers. I would disagree. Yes, they have the capacity to be potent, but they lack the will. Russia, after Afghanistan, lacks both the will and the capacity. What good are 19,000 tanks if you can't really crew them, or pay the crews you do have? China simply doesn't want to jump into the whole weltpolitik.

As for executing minors, here is how I see it. I can't think of a case where a minor was actually executed. Now many have been sentenced to death while they were minors. I don't know if you're from the US but execution is par for the course really. And let us remember that there are really only a handful of laws that can warrant the death penalty in this country - capital murder, treason, and espionage are the only ones I can think of. Frankly, traitors and murders deserve nothing less in my opinion - especially traitors. Now why don't you look at other nations. Saudi Arabia is a good example. Compare a lethal injection to decapitation. Which do you think is more a violation of human rights? North Korea. Lord knows they adhere to all the Human Rights conventions and laws. This is just another bright, shining example of the Great Double Standard.

Immitation...flattery...You know, when the brighest minds of Europe couldn't come up with a document so beautiful as the Constitution...when a bunch of rogues, rebels, and slave holders come up with such a beautiful document... I say piss on the world. Sure, I say let the Iraqis borrow from the Constitution. Hell, they can take it verbatim if they want. There's not a snowflake's chance in hell it would be upheld. I'll throw fifty bucks and my fleet of guitars on the line that when no one is there to babysit the Iraqis they will erupt into violence and the Shia will rise to form an oppressive pro-Iran theocracy. Hell, I'll bet one hundred dollars on that. If the US can barely uphold its Constitution, what makes anyone think the 'mob rule' mentallity of Iraq can? An entire generation has grown up knowing nothing but strong arm tactics. Frankly, they are just screwed.

Your ideas that the UN has actually prevented wars is absurd. I don't even think the UN prevented a World War. Neither the US or USSR seriously desired a war with the other. Nuclear weapons ensured that no major war would occur between the two. Tomorrow I'll post a list of wars that have followed the creation of the UN. The list is quite long and the casualty count quite high. If you want to know the bitter truth, more people have died as a result of war and genocide since the UN than before the UN [1900-1945]. Instead of one major war, we've had at least fifty wars, civil wars, and genocides. Did you know that we've not had a single year of peace since the UN? Boy, are they doing their jobs!

As for the failings of the UN I will only say this: Fix it or disband it - preferably the latter.

No argument about the "naked agression of the UK and US" As far as the politics of that go, I find it absolutely hilarious. Bush and Crew schooled the UN, for lack of a better term. If the UN was a woman, the US just slept with her then never called her.

Personally, I do want to find out if we'd be better off without the UN. When I post the list of wars and genocides, you'll see my point. When I go into more depth about how the nature of US-Soviet relations prevented world war, I think you'll come around. I personally won't be happy until the UN Headquarters are out of the United States and in its place stands a monumental symbol of American Nationalism. Perhaps a bronze statue of a US Marine stepping on the UN flag. That would make me happy beyond human understanding. Irrational to be sure.

But now I grow tired. Operation Michael can continue tomorrow. Then comes Operation Georgette, then finally Operation Gericht.