where's the regime change here?

Sleipnir

I'd have thought the U.S. would have sent their entire arsenal here by now.
Maybe they don't know?


"The United Nations is investigating reports of a massacre of civilians by tribal fighters in north-eastern Congo. A UN spokesman said the organisation was alerted to the massacre by two survivors, including one who said he hid under dead bodies to save his own life. The survivors said fighters from the Lendu tribe took over five canoes carrying 180 passengers on Lake Albert on January 15th. They allegedly massacred around 100 male passengers, raped some of the women and then forced them to carry cargo looted from the vessels. "

Big Ears

maybe they dont see it as a ' threath ' to there country.

Jaden

No Oil. What would the point be?

sovtek

Seeing how this has been going in one form or another since '98.
I destinctly recall some guys holding one guy down while he begged the camerman to help him.
They then threw him off a bridge into a river a significant distance below. Then they started firing into the water.
This was all over CNN at the time.
Clinton visited South Africa around that time (funny enough followed by Castro not so long after).
But hey Monica gave Clinton a BJ, Yugoslavia was bombed and the rest is history.
Or maybe 15 years from now when Halliburton wants access to privatise their water infrastructure we'll hear how bad these guys are and how the country needs to be liberated.

Sand

Personally Ive lost faith with the US and its interventionist polices. Im placing all my hopes with the U.N. and their policy of engagement. Give peace a chance lads.

DadaKopf

False dichotomy, Sand.

The Security Council is dominated by US and US allies and collusionists.

That's the whole reason *why* the UN intervenes in some atrocities and not in others.

I know you're being sarcastic about the UN, but in a sense, if you support US policies, you kinda support the UN, too.

In any case, the UN is an institution that maintains the status-quo enjoyed by the world's most powerful countries. Consequently, I haven't much faith in the UN either. But it's the least-worst such institution we've got.

shotamoose

Originally posted by DadaKopf
I haven't much faith in the UN either. But it's the least-worst such institution we've got.

Exactly. But it's so easy to blame the UN for 'doing nothing' while somehow absolving its members of any guilt, then allow them to take all the credit when 'the UN' actually agrees to do something.

The UN is a club, and like any club it is only as good as its members. In terms of war and peace, that means it's only as good as the members of the Security Council. Which isn't very good at all.

DadaKopf

I'm not absolving any UNSC members of anything. "He who says nothing consents" and all that. For example, I was deeply embarrassed, but not suprised, by Ireland's dismal performance in the UNSC last year and to me it just reinforced the reality behind all the bad press the UN gets.

Geromino

Originally posted by Jaden
No Oil. What would the point be?

Yes but there is oil. Here are a few links:
http://www.moles.org/ProjectUnderground/mil/congo.shtml
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/da90421e.html
http://www.mbendi.co.za/cycooi.htm

Sand

I know you're being sarcastic about the UN, but in a sense, if you support US policies, you kinda support the UN, too.

I support the UNs aspirations but theyre toothless. I dont support the U.S. as such, but it is far from toothless and under the proper circumstances and encouragement it can live up to its own view of itself as a big friendly giant. From a practical point of view the best course of action is for either the U.N. to develop some real teeth and the willingness to use them to stop atrocities like the above, or for the U.S. and other powers to be encouraged that democratic regimes that respect human rights and do not mass produce terrorists are more in their strategic interests than allies of convenience like Saudia Arabia and Pakistan. Somalia was an example of where the U.S. seemed to be heading along that path, and 9/11 may have the legacy of reminding policy makers that they cant simply ignore trouble spots abroad or their conduct in dealing with some dictator.

In any case, the UN is an institution that maintains the status-quo enjoyed by the world's most powerful countries. Consequently, I haven't much faith in the UN either. But it's the least-worst such institution we've got.

Which is exactly why the un will never develop teeth or the willingess to use them. The un is a tool to maintain the status quo - the veto ensures this along with the divided loyalties of national interests and lip service to human rights etc etc. Ever since the second world war it has existed to keep the state of play much as it always has been. The status quo is not inherently brilliant, nor is it always wise to maintain it - the U.S. tried to maintain the status quo in Iran by supporting the Shah and look where it got them.

I can understand why people would look at say the atrocities in Vietnam (one example) and ask how does this fit in with the positive view the US has of itself as the great liberator/friend of the downtrodden and become extremely cynical. I dont see how they can look at an organisation whose entire claimed mandate is to improve human rights/conditions and prevent war crimes/atrocities without being cynical when they look at the UNs record in Srebinica for example or its obvious manipulation to serve the national interests of its various member interests and its utter failure. Sure, as said below , its only as good as its members but then whats the point in the club if its going to be a tool of its members rather than an educator?

Exactly. But it's so easy to blame the UN for 'doing nothing' while somehow absolving its members of any guilt, then allow them to take all the credit when 'the UN' actually agrees to do something.

I would have thought it would be the reverse tbh - no one asks why isnt the Un doing something to stop this - theyre asking why the Us isnt doing anything to stop this. Im sorry, but isnt this the uns juristiction? Wasnt the US demonised for daring to play the role of international policeman and underming the role of the un? the us is one member of the un, one. Its an extremely powerful member but its not omnipotent and it can only fight so many wars simultaneously - where are the other members who decried the US for unilaterlism? Surely this is their chance to show that the UN is not simply the US.

Am I supposed to believe that France, Germany, Russia and China cant get together 20,000 or so guys and send them in to create and enforce safe areas? Without surrendering the first time the enemy show up this time.

No Oil. What would the point be?

In the right wing nonsense thread a claim by an article that the Saudis can only explain US motivations in terms of oil and murder is seen as being ridiculous. Its kind of ironic to me anyway.

No Oil. What would the point be?

they're no threat to US interests. Iraq affected both their allies and their own interests in the M.East. The congo has been a messed up place for decades. The US have no real interests there, so they'll not bother with them.

sovtek

Originally posted by klaz
they're no threat to US interests. Iraq affected both their allies and their own interests in the M.East. The congo has been a messed up place for decades. The US have no real interests there, so they'll not bother with them.

Well no major interests in the Congo...at this point. There was the little matter of assassinating Lumamba for various Cold War and "national interest" reasons a few years back...of course there were a few western intelligence agencies involved in that.
Mobutu..he was our son of a bitch.

Piliger

Originally posted by Kananga
I'd have thought the U.S. would have sent their entire arsenal here by now.
Maybe they don't know?


"The United Nations is investigating reports of a massacre of civilians by tribal fighters in north-eastern Congo. A UN spokesman said the organisation was alerted to the massacre by two survivors, including one who said he hid under dead bodies to save his own life. The survivors said fighters from the Lendu tribe took over five canoes carrying 180 passengers on Lake Albert on January 15th. They allegedly massacred around 100 male passengers, raped some of the women and then forced them to carry cargo looted from the vessels. "

Let's see how many European countries send troops. Let's see how many get involved to save any lives.

Of course they won't. Why ? Because the same people that protested to keep SD in power would be out on the streets objecting to any war irrespective of how many lives are at stake. In Europe today there is no concern whatsoever at the plight of people around the world, however serious.
The only activity is the knocking of America in an attempt to shed the guilt at our own indifference.

jerenaugrim

Apparently 3m people have been killed in the Congo war since 1998. Africa doesn't really count, tho', does it?

bonkey

Didn't the UN Peacekeepers pull out of the Congo in 2001? No-one here seems to be considering this in terms of either side of the argument.

jc

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
I support the UNs aspirations but theyre toothless.

Same here. And I would like to see its members give the UN more power to actually enforce its charter rather than everything being contingent on the mood-swings of five countries. But I don't think it's going to happen any time soon, because that would require the agreement of those five members. And they've got no interest in seeing a more powerful UN.

I dont support the U.S. as such, but it is far from toothless and under the proper circumstances and encouragement it can live up to its own view of itself as a big friendly giant.

Does allowing it to get away with anything it feels like count as 'the proper encouragement'? Doesn't the Bush administration's unilateralism actually undermine the development of a genuinely powerful UN? How exactly does one go from calling for a more powerful UN to cheering when its most powerful member ignores majority world opinion and invades selected countries on a whim? A system in which you only go along with multilateralism when it happens to fit with your own goals is no system at all. For the UN you and I both seem to want to exist, the US and the other SC members will have to accept externally some fixed limits to their own actions.

From a practical point of view the best course of action is for either the U.N. to develop some real teeth and the willingness to use them to stop atrocities like the above

Agreed again. Right now, security council members refuse to give the UN any meaningful executive power - until they do, criticism of the UN's failure to act should fall on their shoulders. When the UN gets a real standing peacekeeping force with its own military command, then we can start criticising it.

Sure, as said below , its only as good as its members but then whats the point in the club if its going to be a tool of its members rather than an educator?[/b

I'm sure UN staff constantly ask themselves the same question. Only ones who can answer it are the permanent members of the Security Council.

where are the other members who decried the US for unilaterlism? Surely this is their chance to show that the UN is not simply the US.

Here's what I think is the central inconsistency in your argument. You 're saying that the other members of the UN should show the US how powerful the UN can be by sorting out the Congo - but what if the US vetoes it? Then by it's own laws the UN wouldn't be able to do anything. As it stands, individual countries can unilaterally block multilateral action. Until that changes - ie until the US (and others) give up some of their power - we won't get the UN we want.

It's not that surprising that UN members haven't wanted to get involved in the Congo - a war between six nations in a country the size of Western Europe with 250 different ethnic factions. But there has been some involvement, with a gradually increasing peacekeeping force in the country, growing to over 5,000 mandated by resolution 1291.

Of course, 5,000 isn't much in a country of 50m, but look how hard the US are finding it to keep down Iraq (25m) with about 100,000 troops. By that calculation you'd need well over 200,000 UN peacekeepers to have had any real effect on the old Congo warzone. And that's just one of the many wars going on around the world. Why do we think the UN should be able to enforce peace around the world with no army, when the world's only superpower can't seem to manage it even one country at a time?

bonkey

Originally posted by shotamoose
It's not that surprising that UN members haven't wanted to get involved in the Congo

Before making statements like that, I'd strongly suggest that you do a google on the terms "UN Congo". The reults may surprise you, judging from the above comment.

jc

shotamoose

Originally posted by bonkey
Before making statements like that, I'd strongly suggest that you do a google on the terms "UN Congo". The reults may surprise you, judging from the above comment.

jc

I did. What I meant was they haven't shown great enthusiasm for it because of the nature of the conflict but - as I clearly wrote in the second last paragraph - the UN has been involved, so that criticisms of it for NOT getting involved were unfair. As usual, I probably could have chosen my words better.

Well no major interests in the Congo...at this point. There was the little matter of assassinating Lumamba for various Cold War and "national interest" reasons a few years back...of course there were a few western intelligence agencies involved in that.

The only periods that the US have shown an interest in Africa, was went Russia was trying to gain influence. Nowadays theres no threat to them, so they won't consider invading or interfering. Now, if China or N.Korea suddenly started making allies there, we might see the US take an active interest in the well being of Africa.

The only activity is the knocking of America in an attempt to shed the guilt at our own indifference

Hardly. But at the end of the US activities affect us more than the Congo, or most countries in Africa. So naturally the Congo will have a lower priority. It always will. Besides, What good have Western Nations ever brought to Africa? Colonisation, disease, white-men wars, encouragement of interracial wars, concentration camps, slavery etc. the list goes on. The West often sticks its head into countries like the Congo, and generally exits leaving the country worse off than before.

But i will freely admit i am indifferent to the plight of those in Africa. I'm more concerned what happens to my own nation, and what affects my own live. Shocking way to live, no? :ninja:

Sand

Does allowing it to get away with anything it feels like count as 'the proper encouragement'?

The reality is it is not possible to stop the U.S. doing anything it has decided it *must* do. France and co tried in the U.N security council, millions of protestors tried out in the streets and the war still went ahead. The proper encouragement might have been "Okay you want to depose Saddam, we dont like him either. But have you got a plan for the immediate aftermath? Whats your plan for a provisional government and elections of a new government? Do you really want to be associated with this character who youre claiming will be a good leader in Iraq when there are so many issues for him?" Instead France and co got involved in a "Do it our way or else!" face down with the single greatest political, military and economic empire the world has ever seen. Is that practical or sensible? Was it effective?

Doesn't the Bush administration's unilateralism actually undermine the development of a genuinely powerful UN?

Hes merely one of five permament members doing that though isnt he? People have said before that if the U.S. doesnt follow the rules why should anyone - the reality is that nations have been ignoring and abusing the U.N. for decades - why should the U.S. follow its rules in that climate?

How exactly does one go from calling for a more powerful UN to cheering when its most powerful member ignores majority world opinion and invades selected countries on a whim? A system in which you only go along with multilateralism when it happens to fit with your own goals is no system at all. For the UN you and I both seem to want to exist, the US and the other SC members will have to accept externally some fixed limits to their own actions.

Practicality - the U.N. is incapable of enforcing its aspirations - the U.S. is and is at least open to the idea of putting those aspirations into practice. When we admit that the U.N. is manipulated for national interests by all its members then we must also admit that it does not and can never be viewed as have a greater moral weight than any single nation or coalition of nations. Id like to see a strong U.N. but it will never happen, and you agree with me on that i think. In the abscence of a strong U.N. we must accept that the reality is we rely on strong nations or alliances of nations to intervene in atrocities like the one that started the thread. The U.N. has acted as a flag of convenience for those strong nations at times but it has never been anything more than that. Lets accept that and move on.

Agreed again. Right now, security council members refuse to give the UN any meaningful executive power - until they do, criticism of the UN's failure to act should fall on their shoulders. When the UN gets a real standing peacekeeping force with its own military command, then we can start criticising it.

Why cant we start criticising it now? It is claimed that it is the ultimate judge on international rights and wrongs - what are we to think when we say well whats bein done about such and such massacre and they say "Well, you see, when we said we were the ultimate judge on international rights and wrongs, what we really meant was we have a ring around to Washinton, London, Paris, Moscow and Beijing and we get our orders from them. Theyre actually the ultimate judge on international rights and wrongs". Im going to criticise an organisation which claims its the bees knees and yet cant follow through. Lets just cut out the middle man and ring up washington directly shall we - its the reality anyway?

Its a fatally flawed toothless organistaion with an admirable set of aspirations. Just because it cant live up to its own hype doesnt mean I cant criticise it.

Here's what I think is the central inconsistency in your argument. You 're saying that the other members of the UN should show the US how powerful the UN can be by sorting out the Congo - but what if the US vetoes it?

Well, the Congo isnt Israel so the possibility decreases dramatically - but what if it did? What would be the correct course of action? To go - Well the U.N. have decided the Congo doesnt need more peacekeepers - as a multilateral organisation their decision is unassailable? To dare to think - No, the Congo *needs* peacekeepers in there whatever the U.N. says - lets send them in there anyway to secure safe zones and to hell with the un?

Why do we think the UN should be able to enforce peace around the world with no army, when the world's only superpower can't seem to manage it even one country at a time?

Why do we think it should be the uns role to enforce peace around the world with no army? Its like making the samaritans the cops. I sure theyre a decent crowd of people but theyd be overrun by crinimals and be incapable of dealing with them. For as long as the un has no army then its role as international policeman is an aspiration, not a reality or even close to one and it never will be in all reality. In that sort of world why are we being so naive about the un and its capabilities? If the Eu was threatened militarily tomorrow the first call would be to Washington, not New York. And the most effective assistance would come from Washington, not New York.

EDIT:

This story is a bit old, coming from last May but it shows how the U.N. is ready to respond to massacres of civillians and situations described as another Rwanda.

Col. Daniel Vollot, deputy commander of the UN forces, agreed. "Does the world care what goes on in the Congo? No," he said. "We've been sending messages every day to New York this was going to happen, that we need more troops. Nothing was done."

In reality hed have been better of calling Washington and telling them they had just struck oil.

Victor

Originally posted by klaz
Besides, What good have Western Nations ever brought to Africa? Colonisation, disease, white-men wars, encouragement of interracial wars, concentration camps, slavery etc. the list goes on. The West often sticks its head into countries like the Congo, and generally exits leaving the country worse off than before.

The UN does not solely consist of "the west".

Originally posted by Sand
Instead France and co got involved in a "Do it our way or else!" face down with the single greatest political, military and economic empire the world has ever seen.

I'm not sure if I quite agree with you on that, but "Do it our way or else!" is much more resonant of American activities.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Instead France and co got involved in a "Do it our way or else!" face down with the single greatest political, military and economic empire the world has ever seen.

What? The French never tried that against the Romans. What are you on about

Is that practical or sensible? Was it effective?

Its funny that when such criticism is levelled against the US, an answer of "its better to try" is generally accepted.....


jc

The UN does not solely consist of "the west".

True. But western opinions and customs are prevelant amongst them. The main powers in the UN are France, Germany, the US, Britain. All western powers. All with a history of colonisation. It is the mindset of the western nations and their history that determined their history in Africa. Personally, i don't think the mindset of opinions towards Africa in the west has changed all that much from 100 years ago.

Victor

Originally posted by klaz
True. But western opinions and customs are prevelant amongst them. The main powers in the UN are France, Germany, the US, Britain. All western powers.

Not saying they are better or worse, but Russia and China also have vetoes (Germany doesn't). There are other strong members of the UN including Brazil, India, South Africa, Japan, Egypt while having facets of westernism, do not follow the pure "western" point of view

Originally posted by klaz
Personally, i don't think the mindset of opinions towards Africa in the west has changed all that much from 100 years ago.

It has, both politically and in the change from "cheap labour and materials" being an asset to a perceived liability.

Politically, there is a greater willingness to see Africa while not necessarily "equal", but that it has it's own, (varied) value sets. As African nations emerge, there is a move towards giving advice and leaving those governments make their own decisions rather than imposing decisions (obvious exceptions are where governments have stepped way out of line like South Africa with apartheid or Zimbabwe).

sovtek

Originally posted by Victor
Not saying they are better or worse, but Russia and China also have vetoes (Germany doesn't). There are other strong members of the UN including Brazil, India, South Africa, Japan, Egypt while having facets of westernism, do not follow the pure "western" point of view

But there is the heavy influence and sometimes downright dictation from cheifly the US along with Britian, France, China and Russia.
America didn't like Blix in the beggining so they get Butler. America didn't like Boutris-Boutris (spelling) so they get Khofi...etc.

As African nations emerge, there is a move towards giving advice and leaving those governments make their own decisions rather than imposing decisions (obvious exceptions are where governments have stepped way out of line like South Africa with apartheid or Zimbabwe).

That's true to an extent. But it's largely rhetorical IMHO. You now have the IMF and WTO to force it's will on African nations. One example being privatization of water utilities.
South Africa just recently lost all aid from America because of it's anti-Iraq war stance.