NationStates Jolt Archive

Not sure if this has been posted yet but..

Let's see them try and justify this.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6890764

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United Nations is investigating about 150 allegations of sexual abuse by U.N. civilian staff and soldiers in the Congo, some of them recorded on videotape, a senior U.N. official said on Monday.

Not sure if this has been posted yet but..

Let's see them try and justify this.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6890764

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United Nations is investigating about 150 allegations of sexual abuse by U.N. civilian staff and soldiers in the Congo, some of them recorded on videotape, a senior U.N. official said on Monday.


They've been screwing the poor people of Africa for years, now they've finally turned it up to actual screwing.

Can't we just get a de-hydrating machine (like the one from the Batman Pilot Movie) and just reduce everyone in the UN to dust?

Yep. That was classy. Reading more than this bit, it seems like the best of each society filters down to the military. From what country were these beacons of freedom again? Oh, right... the report isn't quite ready yet. Would it be wrong to have peace keepers only from countries that REALLY aknowledge those rights they are supposed to protect? I guess it would.

Yep. That was classy. Reading more than this bit, it seems like the best of each society filters down to the military. From what country were these beacons of freedom again? Oh, right... the report isn't quite ready yet. Would it be wrong to have peace keepers only from countries that REALLY aknowledge those rights they are supposed to protect? I guess it would.

I doubt they'ld be able to find any to do the job.

I find it interesting that the behaviour of soldiers on a mission is being blamed on the UN. The UN may provide the mandate for peackeeping operations, but the actions of soldiers assigned to these missions is strictly the responsibility of the member countries who provide them and their commanders in the field.

Or, to put it another way, if Abu Ghraib had been a British-run prison (or Polish), would you have accepted people blaming America for it because the invasion of IRaq was done under American authority?

I doubt it...

FYI: According to the UN website, the current military contributers to the Congo are:
Algeria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, France, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Jordan, Kenya, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay and Zambia

The fact that so many peacekeepers are drawn from countries who have spotty civil rights records of their own makes such things almost inevitable. However most developed countries simply won't contribute enough troops to remove this reliance on third-world troops - so I fear that this sort of thing will continue.


And what are the options for the UN? Not provide peacekeepers and allow a civil war to continue with all of the associated deaths and destruction? Or put in whatever troops it can scrape together to stop the killing and hope that the troops behave? Or do they decide that the potential for a few abuses is too great and allow a known horror to continue?

Not a choice any of us would like to have to have on our conscience.

And, also for the record, here is how poorly the Western World supports UN peacekeeping.

Troops on UN peacekeeping missions last month:

Australia: 95
Belgium: 21
Canada: 196
Denmark: 0
Finland: 187
France: 400
Germany: 14
Italy: 96
IReland: 437
Netherlands: 1
Norway: 0
Poland:591
Portugal: 5
Spain: 3
UK: 420
USA: 12

The Congo mission alone has a mandate for over 10,000 troops.

So who IS contributing?
Bangladesh: 8,000
Brazil: 1300
China: 786
Etheopia: 3400
Ghana: 3100
India: 2600
Jordan: 1300
Kenya: 1700
Morocco: 1500
Namibia: 860
Nepal: 2260
Nigeria: 3260
PAkistan: 8600
Senegal: 1400
South Africa: 2500
Ukraine: 1130
Uruguay: 2400

This isn't an aberration. This stuff happens all the time with the UN. They're a bunch of sick, deranged, depraved bastards. They're one of the greatest threats to world peace the world has ever seen.

The Congo mission alone has a mandate for over 10,000 troops.

So who IS contributing?
Bangladesh: 8,000
Brazil: 1300
China: 786
Etheopia: 3400
Ghana: 3100
India: 2600
Jordan: 1300
Kenya: 1700
Morocco: 1500
Namibia: 860
Nepal: 2260
Nigeria: 3260
PAkistan: 8600
Senegal: 1400
South Africa: 2500
Ukraine: 1130
Uruguay: 2400

All if not most of the afore-mentioned nations are dictatorships.

And let's not forget the millions who die of malaria every year thanks to the UN's anti-DDT actions. Bastards. :mad:

Gee, and I thought the UN could do no wrong - that they were the ultimate world authority watching out for MY needs....

The UN has not made the world a better place. On the contrary, since the UN's inception, the number of wars has not decreased, but has skyrocketed exponentially. The UN has in fact engaged in terrorist wars of its own, the most graphic example being the rape of Katanga. The UN also has a sick double-standard that condemns racism against blacks but condones racism against whites. ALL racism is wrong. The UN always chastised South Africa for apartheid (which in reality was more a defense against communist subversion than it was a racial institution), yet says nothing about the ongoing slaughter of white Afrikaaner farmers in South Africa today (with the tacit approval of the government). These were not people affiliated with the National Party or apartheid, but simply ordinary citizens going about their lives, peacefully minding their own business. The UN hated Rhodesia- a country with impeccable human rights, widespread racial harmony, equal rights to all races, superb education and health care facilities, low crime, and peaceful relations with its neighbors. The UN denounced Rhodesia as a 'threat to world peace.' Rhodesia, now called Zimbabwe, is now a totalitarian dictatorship that has slaughtered over 30,000 Matabeles, and is now embarking on a killing spree against the country's whites. AIDS, starvation, and inflation are rampant, racism is all-pervasive, violence is widespread, and people die left and right of disease while Mugabe lives like a king. The UN also adored mass murdering terrorist Yassir Arafat. The UN hated Anastasio Somoza, who permitted freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and treated criminals and subversives very leniently and made many positive contributions to his country. Yet the UN loved the Sandinistas, who outlawed free press, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion, and resorted to the most atrocious tactics to attain (and maintain) power. They castrated men and stuffed their genitals in their mouths, beat people to death, soaked people in gasoline and set them on fire, shot children, gouged out eyeballs, slashed open pregnant women's wombs, kidnapped people, etc. In 1980 alone they killed more people than Augusto Pinochet is accused of killing during his seventeen years in power. The Sandinistas imprisoned thousands and committed genocide against the Miskito indians. Yet the UN loved them (and the left still twist themselves into pretzels trying to explain away all this). Then there's the Oil-for-Food scandal, etc., etc., etc...

I am so glad to finally seetha tnot everyone here is a UN sicophant....

Troops on UN peacekeeping missions last month:

...

Netherlands: 1

Poor guy.

Or, to put it another way, if Abu Ghraib had been a British-run prison (or Polish), would you have accepted people blaming America for it because the invasion of IRaq was done under American authority?

I doubt it...



No I don't doubt that at all. It would have been laid squarely at the feet of the US.

And, also for the record, here is how poorly the Western World supports UN peacekeeping.

Troops on UN peacekeeping missions last month:

Australia: 95
Belgium: 21
Canada: 196
Denmark: 0
Finland: 187
France: 400
Germany: 14
Italy: 96
IReland: 437
Netherlands: 1
Norway: 0
Poland:591
Portugal: 5
Spain: 3
UK: 420
USA: 12

The Congo mission alone has a mandate for over 10,000 troops.

So who IS contributing?
Bangladesh: 8,000
Brazil: 1300
China: 786
Etheopia: 3400
Ghana: 3100
India: 2600
Jordan: 1300
Kenya: 1700
Morocco: 1500
Namibia: 860
Nepal: 2260
Nigeria: 3260
PAkistan: 8600
Senegal: 1400
South Africa: 2500
Ukraine: 1130
Uruguay: 2400


Don't these big contributors have regional interests? And are they not otherwise compensated by the UN?

When I see bangladeshi troops in Columbia, then your point will be valid.

bump

Don't these big contributors have regional interests? And are they not otherwise compensated by the UN?

When I see bangladeshi troops in Columbia, then your point will be valid.
Compensated? As I recall member states have to PAY to be in. Any compensation would come from the vast disparity that the US and Japan have to pay for membership.