Similar stories - different nations.

nilobarri

If you've been watching the news or news websites today, you may have come across the story of how Irish soldiers rescued 35 Liberian villagers from a gang of thugs who were formerly guided by disgraced ex president Charles Taylor. The leaders of the gang have been arrested and most of the others fled across the border into Guinea. There hasn't been much fuss about the story (it hasn't even been the heading of any news bulletin I've heard) despite the fact that the villagers had been held for days, beaten, raped and tortured.

Contrast this with the pathetic fuss that the Americans generated earlier this year over the "rescue" of Private Jennifer Lynch. She had supposedly been shot and captured by brutal Iraqis after hold them off singlehandledly for a while, was being held in dreadful conditions, had been raped before being rescued by brave fellow Americans in a daring raid and flew home to a heroine's welcome.

The truth has a nasty habit of coming out slowly - not least because the individual at the centre of the story was totally disgusted at the distortions by the Bush administration. You know it already but here goes.
1. She had not been captured. She was brought to a hospital for treatment.
2. She had not been shot. In fact, she only had some broken bones from having crashed the vehicle she was driving.
3. She was not assaulted in any way. In fact, she was given the best treatment the Iraqis could offer under the circumstances - much better than other Iraqis received.
4. The "daring raid" was totally unnecessary. The Yanks knew she was being held in a hospital where there were no soldiers. In fact, they had been told a full two days beforehand and asked to come and pick her up but of course, it takes time to organise a "show".
5. In their assault on the hospital, patients and doctors were attacked and vital medical equipment was destroyed.

Can you imagine what it would be like if the Yanks had executed that operation in Liberia? We'd never hear the end of it.....



Nil O'Barri.

simu

Hollywood-style stories have much better PR-value for the American Government than sober reporting of fact. Sad but true.

Plus the world (i.e. the media) has a panic attack if the slightest thing goes wrong in America. Imagine if the equivalent of the Iranian earthquake, with similar death toll, had taken place in California. We'd never hear the end of "The day America was shaken to the core" or whatever other media-friendly name was tagged onto it.

What I really hate is how the Irish media is influenced by this as well. I suppose they'd have the excuse that Irish ppl are interested in America because they may have relatives there but the news isn't supposed to be a fun entertainment show!

uaobrien

Originally posted by nilobarri
If you've been watching the news or news websites today, you may have come across the story of how Irish soldiers rescued 35 Liberian villagers from a gang of thugs who were formerly guided by disgraced ex president Charles Taylor. The leaders of the gang have been arrested and most of the others fled across the border into Guinea. There hasn't been much fuss about the story (it hasn't even been the heading of any news bulletin I've heard) despite the fact that the villagers had been held for days, beaten, raped and tortured.

Well that's how special operations are meant to be run. You send in professionals, they do their jobs (hopefully without sustaining casualties) and then they move on to the next objective. Few people know what's really happened, most will never know, but those who do are grateful.

Now I doubt our lads were ARW, I'm sure they were regular troops on UN assignment. But fair play to them for what they did and fair play to the respective bureaucrats for showing the U.S. the right way to operate in Search & Rescue ops. i.e. get the job done and keep your mouth shut, don't try to make it bigger than it actually was.

MiCr0

There hasn't been much fuss about the story (it hasn't even been the heading of any news bulletin I've heard) despite the fact that the villagers had been held for days, beaten, raped and tortured.

it was the head line on most of the news reports that i heard, and got praised by all involved

therecklessone

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0108/liberia.html

uaobrien

Originally posted by therecklessone
http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0108/liberia.html

I stand pleasantly corrected, they were ARW WooHoo!!!!

Biffa Bacon

Well I for one am outraged by this illegal, immoral, racist and neo-colonial act of war against the defenceless civilians of Liberia. I have never in all my life felt so deeply ashamed to be Irish. Can anyone imagine anything more irresponsible than sending highly trained special forces, armed to the teeth, into a situation where civilians could be hurt? A UN report issued on the eve of this incident predicted that billions could die in such a scenario. It speaks volumes of the esteem in which we hold the lives of people of colour that this action went ahead anyway.

Of course, now that the hostages no longer have anyone to provide them with food and water, a humanitarian disaster of Biblical proportions is surely on the way. As bad as their captors may have been (and no one is mourning their departure), surely nothing could be worse than the long, slow, painful death by starvation that now awaits these “liberated” people.

And let’s not forget the racist assumptions that underpin this whole endeavour. Did anyone ever ask these people if they wanted to be rescued? Of course not. Who’s to say that they didn’t want to be raped and tortured? We are supposedly there to help their transition to democracy, but instead we are imposing our own Western patriarchal notions of “happiness” and “bodily-integrity” on them. The stench of hypocrisy makes me want to retch.

If you ask me what we should have done is this:
1. Send in a team of observers on a twelve-month mission to compile witness-reports and drink tea with the rebel CO.
2. Broker a fair and honourable agreement whereby the rebels get to keep their hostages locked up but no longer torture and rape them.
3. Request permission to intervene from the rebels’ main arms suppliers when the rebels get bored and decide to slit the hostages’ throats, dump their bodies in mass graves and cover them in quicklime.
4. Pose for photo-op at mass graves and make a speech at the UN saying this must never happen again.
5. Commission a report blaming America for the whole thing.
6. Slap ourselves on the back for a job well done, happy in the knowledge that the system works.

Given the culture of fear that now pervades our society however, people are afraid to speak out against these crimes committed in our name. As the biased, corporate media are reduced to the role of mere cheerleaders for the military-industrial machine, we must take to the streets to make our voices heard. I will therefore be organising a march next Saturday from College Green to Dáil Éireann to protest this crime against humanity. Anyone who cares as strongly about these issues as I do should come along. Feel free to make your own banners with amusing slogans such as “ARWseholes” and such like.

So who’s with me?

spanner

i think you should join bush in the white house, i have a feeling you will get on great, the two with the most f**ked up view of the world.
On a serious note i think its great that the UN goes into places like liberia. The UN should be the only force to implement such peace keeping or peace making operations as the only real valid international force

Syth

Biffa Bacon, that was funny, and good for putting things in perspective. Is it a good analogy though? Still kudos.

Geromino

Originally posted by spanner
i think you should join bush in the white house, i have a feeling you will get on great, the two with the most f**ked up view of the world.
On a serious note i think its great that the UN goes into places like liberia. The UN should be the only force to implement such peace keeping or peace making operations as the only real valid international force

And if you recall, France asked the US to come in since there was historical connections. However, what you do not know, or at least I doubt it, is that there is a huge oil reserve off the Western African coast of Liberia, Nigeria, and other surrounding countries. But then again, if the US went in on the same grounds of the UN, it would not take long for the conspiracy nuts to say, "their in it for the oil." By the way, BP and French's oil giant TotalFinaEl. But then again, that's extreme liberal relativism.

Sand

Biffa, congradulations - thats an effort at satire that actually made me laugh and made a point, before today I didnt think it was possible Change a few names and placenames and you have some of the arguments that have been posted here in the past.

On a serious note i think its great that the UN goes into places like liberia. The UN should be the only force to implement such peace keeping or peace making operations as the only real valid international force

Is it?

As far as I remember the U.N. decided a few years ago to remove peacekeeping troops from Macedonia which was being dangerously destabilised by guerilla groups. Why? Because Macedonia recognised Taiwan, and the U.N. decided to punish them by removing the peacekeepers.

If the protection of the U.N. peacekeepers is highly dependant on whether you recognise democraticlaly elected governments or not, how valid is their moral right to maintain a monopoly on humanitarian interventions?

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
As far as I remember the U.N. decided a few years ago to remove peacekeeping troops from Macedonia which was being dangerously destabilised by guerilla groups. Why? Because Macedonia recognised Taiwan, and the U.N. decided to punish them by removing the peacekeepers.

The U.N. didn't decide a few years ago to remove peacekeeping troops from Macedonia. China vetoed the action because Macedonia recognised Taiwan, which is China's right, although I don't agree that it did the right thing to do. Conveniently, the changes in the set-up in the former Yugoslavia also freed up American troops to go to Iraq, as do European and African operations in Liberia.

To suggest that UN operations in Liberia are akin to American operations in Iraq is morally regressive.

bonkey

Originally posted by Victor
The U.N. didn't decide a few years ago to remove peacekeeping troops from Macedonia. China vetoed the action because Macedonia recognised Taiwan, which is China's right, although I don't agree that it did the right thing to do.

Those damned Chinese.....using their veto in such a callous fashion.

<sarcasm>You'd never find respectable nations like the US using their veto in such a callous fashion. No, its only the Chinese, and sometimes those greedy, cowardly garlic-sweating Frenchies.</sarcasm>

As to Biffa's satire....yes bravo. Well done. You complain when the UN doesn't act which is your justification as to why nations like the US should act in its stead. Others say that such things should be left up to the UN, but will generally admit that it does drag its heels.

So what happens when the UN finally appears to get its thumb out on at least one issue and gets involved? Do you stand up and say "Finally, the UN is living up to its responsibility" ?? No, I didn't think so.

You ridicule it. Sand applauds the ridiculing. Film at 11.

The stance the two of you have taken here seems to show that - at the core of it all - you simply don't believe that an international co-operative body of nations has - or should have - a more valid authority than a nation acting unilaterally.

Deuthschland Uber Alles, eh? Or do you not see the hypocracy in applauding some unilateral actions whilst condemning others, rather than simply admitting that unilateralism is simply too dangerous a tool to allow any nation to have a free hand with.

Having said all of that, I wouldn't be too quick to draw comparisons and contrasts with the Jessica Simpson incident. After all, this long after she was rescued, it was still generally believed that she had gone through all of those horrors. Whilst I think that someone completely over-reported the story, the simple fact is that when your enemy in the field contacts you and says "sure, we have your soldier here, and we're taking good care of her...please come and pick her up", the first word that springs to mind is "TRAP". The US were perfectly correct in taking their time and sending in a full heavy-team and being careful. Furthermore, the stories of damage that these guys did to the hospital may be as accurate as the stories of what was allegedly done to JS herself.....just as the allegations of how the villagers were being treated may turn out to be.

While I'm the first in line to be skeptical of reporting, I find it a bit, ummmm, premature to be saying that what is reported about the Irish op must be true, just because its the Irish....while the American stories are patently false because they're from the Americans.

jc

Sand

The U.N. didn't decide a few years ago to remove peacekeeping troops from Macedonia. China vetoed the action because Macedonia recognised Taiwan, which is China's right, although I don't agree that it did the right thing to do.

Surely thats like saying the Irish people didnt decide to reject the Nice treaty the first time it was put to them, but rather that x amount of Irish people voted against it? The U.N. represents all nations so it claims, China is clearly included - the decision the U.N. reached, in accordance with all its accepted rules, values and procedures, was that Macednonia should be punished for recognising Taiwan, by removing the peacekeepers which were helping to stabilise a fraught situation.

I.E. because of cheap dirty politics the U.N. became a tool of those cheap and dirty politics. And who is to say that every decision reached by the U.N. is not cheap and dirty politics? Who is to say then it is inherently superiour to any other action taken by a nation or group of nations?

Look at what happened in Macedonia - As I recall the E.U. changed the name of the force, swapped flags and uniforms and worked around the U.N. that way. Where was the outrage and demands that the will of the U.N. be respected then?

You ridicule it. Sand applauds the ridiculing. Film at 11.

I dont find the action ridiculous - I find it wholly correct and just, it fits in wonderfully with my view that the "free" nations must oppose cruelty and oppression so common in the developing world - up to and including force where practical; incidentially this is something Ive been criticised for as its apparently neo-imperialism. But Biffa has simply applied all the arguments used by those criticising the coalition in Iraq and changed a few names and places and shown up how "relative" those criticisms are. Thats whats funny.

Was violence the only solution in this case? Did they recklessly place the life of civillians at risk? Did they exhaust all non-violent solutions? Were they sure their information correct? How dare they make assumptions that the civillians wanted to be rescued - surely this was up to the civillians to determine and act upon for themselves? Why didnt the U.N. send in monitors to confirm the "reported" situation and file a complete dossier for analysis prior to the action being taken? If the rebels had claimed autonomy from the central government then who were the U.N. to violate their sovereignty and become involved in a civil war? Surely by this act the U.N. has not reduced the risk to life, but actually increased it as the rebels will now view the U.N. and their staff as valid targets? Given the corruption in the Irish government, and suspicion about collusion between agents of the Irish state and terrorists in the UK why should we believe they are correct in this case? Is there oil in Liberia?

The stance the two of you have taken here seems to show that - at the core of it all - you simply don't believe that an international co-operative body of nations has - or should have - a more valid authority than a nation acting unilaterally.

No I dont believe that inherently - it was the U.N. that permitted the srebinica massacre. Does that indicate a more or less valid authority than a nation acting unilaterally - what if the Dutch had simply ignored the hand wringing going on in U.N. HQ and had told the battalion they had there to prevent any enroachment on the safe area, prevent the worst massacre of civllians on European soil since WW2. Theyd be acting unilaterally but what would have been the moral act? To surrender as the U.N. decided or to make a stand to back up all those "never again" feel-good speeches? In fact, as I remember from a previous discussion of that incident the U.N. general in charge of that area refused offers of air support from NATO.

Sadly, for all the talk, the U.N. has not demonstrated its claim to the moral high ground is any more (or less for that matter) justified than any nation or nations acting unilaterally. If theyre on board for carrying out a morally just action, then great, more the merrier - if not, if theyre actually opposed to it, then who cares - its still a morally just act.

Rescuing those civillians from the rebels was morally just - it wouldnt matter a bit if the U.N. gave its approval or if it didnt - it would still be the correct and just thing to do even if violence had to be used as was the case in Liberia.

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
Look at what happened in Macedonia - As I recall the E.U. changed the name of the force, swapped flags and uniforms and worked around the U.N. that way. Where was the outrage and demands that the will of the U.N. be respected then?

But that (NATO?) force is accepted by the Macedonian government itself, isn't it? And UN legitimisation isn't the only legitimisation available - the Cuban blockade (during the Missile Crisis) was endorsed by the OAS, French intervention in Chad -v- Libya by the OAU (now the AU) and Chad, Syria in Lebanon by the Arab League. Liberia is legitimised by the UN and the warring parties. However going half way round the world to invade someone is another matter.

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Well I for one am outraged by this illegal, immoral, racist and neo-colonial act of war against the defenceless civilians of Liberia. I have never in all my life felt so deeply ashamed to be Irish. Can anyone imagine anything more irresponsible than sending highly trained special forces, armed to the teeth, into a situation where civilians could be hurt?

As opposed to sending regular army corps in to rescue them armed with bazookas and a couple of cruise missiles.

I know this was meant to be 'satire' and all, but I really can't see the satire here.

Sand

But that (NATO?) force is accepted by the Macedonian government itself, isn't it? And UN legitimisation isn't the only legitimisation available - the Cuban blockade (during the Missile Crisis) was endorsed by the OAS, French intervention in Chad -v- Libya by the OAU (now the AU) and Chad, Syria in Lebanon by the Arab League. Liberia is legitimised by the UN and the warring parties. However going half way round the world to invade someone is another matter.

So why the uproar over the coalition in Iraq and the demands that the U.N. take administrative control by rights? The coalition force is accepted by the Iraqi Governming Council which is far more representive and legitimate than Saddam Husseins dictatorship whose right to rule was accepted and indeed sanctified by those criticising the unilateral action against a sovereign state.

N.A.T.O. blagged its way around the U.N. decision that peacekeepers should be withdrawn - the U.N. has the highest authority on peacekeeping and peacemaking, its not for any state to take action in contempt of the U.N.s stated position is it? Theres no difference in the basic principle, the decided will of the U.N. in all its glory and wisdom was blatantly ignored, the international community was told where they could stuff their opinion and with a bit of legal chicanery peacekeeping forces remained in defiance of the U.N.s will.

Now assuming that the U.N. is always right and its views are always superiour to that of any one state or coalition of states how can we view the NATO states ( including France and Germany remember ) as being anything other than a threat to the authority of the U.N?

Sparks

Originally posted by Sand
The coalition force is accepted by the Iraqi Governming Council

Who were appointed by the "coalition" forces.

Sand

Who were appointed by the "coalition" forces.

Is it any less legitimate than Saddams regime which was welcomed into the U.N. and defended furiously by France and co as being sovereign? Its a damn sight more representitive for one thing.

Ping Chow Chi

I think the simple point he was making, is that Governing Council is bound to accept the forces that put them into power.

Geromino

Originally posted by Ping Chow Chi
I think the simple point he was making, is that Governing Council is bound to accept the forces that put them into power.

Most of what the governing council has accepted has been the approved agreement by the INC members, Kurds and Shiite opposition groups, in Vienna on August 1993. Even most European Nations encouraged and accepted those protocol agreements when and if Saddam left power.