African Union

Covenline

Anyone know anything about volenteering, recruitment for the african union military force?

Cant find anything on the net. I presume its made up of member state foreces. Would be interesting to discover if they operate a foreign legion style operation also.

DublinWriter

http://www.africa-union.org/

You'd need to be a full-time member of one of member states Primary Defense or Police Forces.

eroo

AU troops aren't known for their military skills....moreso their gung-ho attitude and lackluster troops

ldooley

Covenline wrote: »

Anyone know anything about volenteering, recruitment for the african union military force?

Cant find anything on the net. I presume its made up of member state foreces. Would be interesting to discover if they operate a foreign legion style operation also.

:rolleyes: I see you have quite a few questions about the dole on other forums, might be better off getting a job in the Army/Gardaí first :rolleyes:

Flying

Would'nt touch them with a 10 ft barge pole, they are corupt, badly trained and equipped and you have to be in an army of one of the states to be part of it.

In a nutshell AU = A Big Joke., No offence to the RDF but they would have better training and equipment than the likes of the Nigerians etc, who have been implicit in Darfur of rape and torture of refugees.

eroo

Flying wrote: »

Would'nt touch them with a 10 ft barge pole, they are corupt, badly trained and equipped and you have to be in an army of one of the states to be part of it.

In a nutshell AU = A Big Joke., No offence to the RDF but they would have better training and equipment than the likes of the Nigerians etc, who have been implicit in Darfur of rape and torture of refugees.

Bingo!AU aren't recognised for...anything really!

segaBOY

Flying wrote: »

Would'nt touch them with a 10 ft barge pole, they are corupt, badly trained and equipped and you have to be in an army of one of the states to be part of it.

In a nutshell AU = A Big Joke., No offence to the RDF but they would have better training and equipment than the likes of the Nigerians etc, who have been implicit in Darfur of rape and torture of refugees.

I second that

Oilrig

OP,

The AU is an African response to an African problem... i.e. another chance to extract funds from "Western" nations in lieu of past wrongs committed during "colonisation"

I was in Addis a few years ago at an AU meeting, never seen so many Mercedes before... the Addis hookers made a fortune...

Just my opinion...

gbh

Flying wrote: »

Would'nt touch them with a 10 ft barge pole, they are corupt, badly trained and equipped and you have to be in an army of one of the states to be part of it.

In a nutshell AU = A Big Joke., No offence to the RDF but they would have better training and equipment than the likes of the Nigerians etc, who have been implicit in Darfur of rape and torture of refugees.

What a generalisation there... "They are corrupt, badly trained and equipped"...

Who is corrupt? The ordinary AU soldiers on the ground who put their lives on the line and have done so to protect innocent civilians in Darfur while we in the West sit on our hands and cry crocadile tears as we did with Rwanda?...sure, they are corrupt and we are paragons of virtue.

Badly trained I wouldn't say that, but at least they are brave and willing to enter an active conflict zone, something I rarely if ever see the Irish army do...and that's the crucial thing with peacekeepers, unlike the UN "peacekeepers" who won't budge until there is actually peace and hence were one of the main causes for the Rwanda genocide...

Badly equipped, yes, but again, at least they are on the ground in Darfur which makes them of far superior value to Darfurian refugees than the Irish or any other western army.

You have to be in an army of one of the states to be a part of it...you make it sound like its fun and they are corrupt for not letting us be a part of it...

I don't think the Nigerians have been complicit in any rapes or tortures..They AU soldiers have however been complicit in protecting women from rape when they go outside the camps to collect firewood and have been very successful in doing this..

So yes they have made a valuable contribution to the peace in Darfur as opposed to us in the West who did nothing in Rwanda and did nothing in Darfur...in these circumstances, it's all about boots on the ground, not being arm chair generals and criticising those brave people who are in the line of fire and erroneously calling them corrupt for doing the right thing..

gbh

Oilrig wrote: »

OP,

The AU is an African response to an African problem... i.e. another chance to extract funds from "Western" nations in lieu of past wrongs committed during "colonisation"

I was in Addis a few years ago at an AU meeting, never seen so many Mercedes before... the Addis hookers made a fortune...

Just my opinion...

talk about stereotyping, "another chance to extract funds from Western powers"...Did it ever occur to you that they are trying to move beyond the stage of "extracting" money..read up some more on the website and you will see that none of them want to be going around with the begging bowl...quite the opposite...

to be honest i dont know where you are coming from but if you are in the oil business then exploitation of African resources is the name of the game for you and its oil companies like the ones you are involved in that are directly complicit in conflicts like those in Darfur...so take a bow and congratulate yourself...

I suppose african unity disgusts you precisly because oil companies like to bribe and corrupt national governments of small states...right?

cushtac

gbh wrote: »

Badly trained I wouldn't say that, but at least they are brave and willing to enter an active conflict zone, something I rarely if ever see the Irish army do

A friend of mine who was in Liberia with the army said he regularly saw Nigerian troops abandon check points to watch football or go drinking, that's hardly a sign of good training. The Irish DF is willing to enter 'an active combat zone', but it's not up to the DF to decide where & when it goes. The government does that.

gbh wrote: »

I don't think the Nigerians have been complicit in any rapes or tortures..They AU soldiers have however been complicit in protecting women from rape when they go outside the camps to collect firewood and have been very successful in doing this..

They've done it in their own country:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/1999/12/22/nigeri8887.htm
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/29/nigeri14087.htm

What makes you so sure they won't do it again?

gbh wrote: »

So yes they have made a valuable contribution to the peace in Darfur as opposed to us in the West who did nothing in Rwanda and did nothing in Darfur...in these circumstances, it's all about boots on the ground, not being arm chair generals and criticising those brave people who are in the line of fire and erroneously calling them corrupt for doing the right thing..

You'd swear the Darfur situation was sorted.

Blazher

watch this Doc, You will see and learn everything you need to know about Darfur and Chad!


http://quicksilverscreen.com/watch?video=26063

It is the best Doc i have seen on this matter!

Flying

I have seen the AU firsthand again Nigerians and to a degree Ghanians,they have been involved in rape and torture in darfur,liberia and a lot of other places they have been.

It is a simple fact the the South African Defence Forces seems to be the only real professional army in africa the rest are sub standard milita's (spelling) with little or no training.

milmo

gbh,

Your remarks on the AU as ill-informed and ignorant as I have seen, and appear to be based on nothing more than wishful thinking. I just hope that you are just trying to get a rise out of someone

The AU is militarily ineffective, politically impotent, and utterly incompetent, and totally corrupt. More often than not they they exacerbate the problem they are supposed to be solving.

If you find yourself in the middle of an African crisis be my guest to entrust your security to them. I'd personally pray the French, Brits, Americans, Israelis or other nations with dubious political credentials, but possessing professional well equipped forces have enough self interest in that neck of the woods to evacuate me.http://static.boards.ie/vbulletin/images/smilies/mad.gif
:mad:

uptherebels

Flying wrote: »

It is a simple fact the the South African Defence Forces seems to be the only real professional army in africa the rest are sub standard milita's (spelling) with little or no training.

what about kenya i heard they were fairly handy

gbh

milmo wrote: »

gbh,

Your remarks on the AU as ill-informed and ignorant as I have seen, and appear to be based on nothing more than wishful thinking. I just hope that you are just trying to get a rise out of someone

The AU is militarily ineffective, politically impotent, and utterly incompetent, and totally corrupt. More often than not they they exacerbate the problem they are supposed to be solving.

If you find yourself in the middle of an African crisis be my guest to entrust your security to them. I'd personally pray the French, Brits, Americans, Israelis or other nations with dubious political credentials, but possessing professional well equipped forces have enough self interest in that neck of the woods to evacuate me.http://static.boards.ie/vbulletin/images/smilies/mad.gif
:mad:

I'm not going to get into a stupid immature argument about who knows more about the AU. I know enough about it ok...I do happen to visit the site fairly regurlaly, do you?? I could ask you 20 questions on the organisation and i'm fairly sure you wouldnt be able to answer one which is the same for most people posting on this thread...They speak in generalisations, hearsay, opinion and allegations and not facts...

Again the point I make, is that the allegation which seems to be the allegation that aLL Au soldiers are rapists and torturers is laughable and beneath a proper reply and is basically racist.

There is no organisation noted more for abuses of local people than the UN in Africa, you should know that, and please don't deny it, its a proven fact.

and I include Irish soldiers who were in Ethopia a few years ago and charged with abuses of local women and girls.

Who is involved in several peace negotiations at the moment in Chad, Kenya, Somalia and elsewhere? the African Union.

Who was the first to send peacekeepers to Sudan? The African Union.

Who was on the way to the airport to fly to Chad when they heard a war had broken out and it was too dangerous to go? The Irish rangers, our best and finest, who were unwilling to go into a conflict zone because, well they might get hurt...says it all really about our army..avoid conflict zones at all costs.

Where is the Irish peace keeping force in Darfur? nowhere

The Americans got their asses whipped in Somalia and have no interest in losing one life to protect Africans, so get real please.

gbh

cushtac wrote: »

A friend of mine who was in Liberia with the army said he regularly saw Nigerian troops abandon check points to watch football or go drinking, that's hardly a sign of good training. The Irish DF is willing to enter 'an active combat zone', but it's not up to the DF to decide where & when it goes. The government does that.



They've done it in their own country:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/1999/12/22/nigeri8887.htm
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/29/nigeri14087.htm

What makes you so sure they won't do it again?



You'd swear the Darfur situation was sorted.

And did your friend happen to know the Irish soldiers who were threatening the locals and pointing guns at them and telling them to lie down or they would be shot...but of course the Nigerians who watched the football are far worse...

No use being well trained but never leave your barracks...

The average Irish soldier wouldn't last five minutes in the wars in Africa or in any rebel territory there because they dont know the terrain, wouldnt know the langauge or gain the intelligence required...

If the Americans were routed from Somalia by civilians with guns which is what happened, then surely you dont think the Irish army would do any better?

And even if the Irish army was better equipped and trained, there is no political will in the west to send in western peacekeepers, plus the most crucial thing about all this which i try to emphasise is that you must build african capacity to solve its own problems and you do this by using african peacekeepers so they can learn from their mistakes.

I will post links here in a while showing how the AU soldiers have benefitted the situation.

And like I say Irish soldiers have been implicated in crimes and abuses in Africa.

Flying

gbh wrote: »

I'm not going to get into a stupid immature argument about who knows more about the AU. I know enough about it ok...I do happen to visit the site fairly regurlaly, do you?? I could ask you 20 questions on the organisation and i'm fairly sure you wouldnt be able to answer one which is the same for most people posting on this thread...They speak in generalisations, hearsay, opinion and allegations and not facts...

Again the point I make, is that the allegation which seems to be the allegation that aLL Au soldiers are rapists and torturers is laughable and beneath a proper reply and is basically racist.

There is no organisation noted more for abuses of local people than the UN in Africa, you should know that, and please don't deny it, its a proven fact.

and I include Irish soldiers who were in Ethopia a few years ago and charged with abuses of local women and girls.

Who is involved in several peace negotiations at the moment in Chad, Kenya, Somalia and elsewhere? the African Union.

Who was the first to send peacekeepers to Sudan? The African Union.

Who was on the way to the airport to fly to Chad when they heard a war had broken out and it was too dangerous to go? The Irish rangers, our best and finest, who were unwilling to go into a conflict zone because, well they might get hurt...says it all really about our army..avoid conflict zones at all costs.

Where is the Irish peace keeping force in Darfur? nowhere

The Americans got their asses whipped in Somalia and have no interest in losing one life to protect Africans, so get real please.

Are you talking about the alleged incident in eritrea, this was proven false, also I was there so stop talking out of your behind.

The statements made about the AU are not racist and if you want to play that card goto indymedia or any of your left wing head up there arse sites.

The AU are corrupt, they are ineffective and have been complict in crime in almost every mission they have been involved in and yes so have the UN (Primarily African Nations again) so spout your BS somewhere else as most people commenting have served in Africa in one or several of the conflicts with various different armies.

gbh

Try this link...

http://www.newsfromafrica.org/newsfromafrica/articles/art_10525.html

I also did a google and entered "AU troops implicated in rape torture darfur" and guess what not one single result came back confirming this. So maybe those making the allegations can point us all to where they got their information from and I don't mean hearsay. If they cant then they should stop making the allegations..

I'm not going to say much more only that the African troops put themselves in harms way to monitor a ceasefire, to document abuses and to protect as much as possible refugees when the UN and western governments were debating and debating and still five years later are debating what should be done. Many of those AU soldiers lost their lives or were badly injured. So you could at least give them some praise instead of criticising them. If we were waiting for Irish troops to go to Darfur and the political decision for it, we would be waiting.

gbh

Flying wrote: »

Are you talking about the alleged incident in eritrea, this was proven false, also I was there so stop talking out of your behind.

The statements made about the AU are not racist and if you want to play that card goto indymedia or any of your left wing head up there arse sites.

The AU are corrupt, they are ineffective and have been complict in crime in almost every mission they have been involved in and yes so have the UN (Primarily African Nations again) so spout your BS somewhere else as most people commenting have served in Africa in one or several of the conflicts with various different armies.

Ah resort to abusive language and insults, the last resort of someone who is losing an argument and cannot debate sensibly and maturely.

Fair enough if they were proved false, the ones in Liberia werent proved false.

You were there, but are you everywhere? Answer no, although you seem to imply that. Because you were on the ground doesnt mean you can see the overall picture better than everyone else.

Answer me this then, was Africa better or worse before the AU? Do you know anything about the 1998-2003 war in Congo in which 5 million people died? Probably not. You talk only from personal and subjective opinion which isnt worth dirt when we are talking about the AU.

gbh

Flying wrote: »

The AU are corrupt, they are ineffective and have been complict in crime in almost every mission they have been involved in and yes so have the UN (Primarily African Nations again) so spout your BS somewhere else as most people commenting have served in Africa in one or several of the conflicts with various different armies.

Talk about BS..it was primarily Asian troops who were implicated in abuses in Congo lets be clear...so you are definately racist if you keep saying that, which i think you are anyways, because the main gist of your argument is that US troops (who killed almost a 1000 civilians in mogadishu in one day and who have killed thousands of innocent people and caused the death of hundreds of thousands in iraq) are perfect, French troops who were seen manning checkpoints in Rwanda before, during and after the Genocide are perfect, Belgian troops who assasinated the president of congo are perfect, Asian troops who were implicated in child trafficking in congo are perfect, but African troops who are no better are worse and in a lot of cases better as peacekeepers are crooked and corrupt...give me a break..

cushtac

gbh wrote: »

Fair enough if they were proved false, the ones in Liberia werent proved false.

The Liberia incident involved guys acting for the camera. The soldiers in question got the locals to lie down like they were shot, then they all stood back up laughing. It was stupid & immature, but it certainly wasn't threatening in nature. Had it been as big a deal as you want to make it out to be, the lads in question wouldn't have been just fined.

What's your own experience with the AU? You're very quick to rubbish the first-hand experiences of others but you've yet to tell us what makes an expert.

Cato

Here we go again

gbh

For anyone that didn't read the link I posted here it is, from the reputable Brookings Institute...


Darfur
The successes and shortcomings of the African Union in Darfur
Although armed conflict in Darfur continues to adversely affect millions of people, a report released by the Brookings Institution-University of Bern Project on Internal Displacement says that African Union peacekeeping troops have made a difference.
15 November 2005 - Brookings Institution-University of Bern Project on Internal Displacement
Source: The Brookings Institution
http://www.brookings.edu/comm/news/200511_au_darfur.htm

Although armed conflict in Darfur continues to leave millions of people homeless, vulnerable to violence, and susceptible to potentially life-threatening diseases, a report released today by the Brookings Institution-University of Bern Project on Internal Displacement says that, contrary to popular belief, African Union (AU) peacekeeping troops have made a difference in the region.

According to the report, their presence has deterred the rape of women, reduced the recruitment of children into armed forces, protected humanitarian corridors and aid convoys, reduced the looting of animals belonging to Arab nomads, and helped displaced persons who returned to their homes. However, the report also finds many shortcomings and offers detailed recommendations to deal with the deteriorating situation in Darfur, including an increase in AU troop strength to at least 20,000.

In the report, Protecting Two Million Internally Displaced: The Successes and Shortcomings of the African Union in Darfur, co-authors William G. O'Neill and Violette Cassis provide a first-hand look at how AU troops on the ground have saved lives and prevented atrocities against internally displaced persons (IDPs) and other civilians, but also suffer from "grossly inadequate" numbers of troops and police, a weak mandate, and limited equipment.

"Darfur has become a test case for African peacekeeping," says Roberta Cohen, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and co-director of the Brookings-Bern Project on Internal Displacement. "As millions of men, women and children remain crammed into displaced persons' camps, and continue to face attacks by heavily armed militias, they look to African Union forces-now some 6,700 in number-to provide them with a degree of protection."

Based on interviews with AU troops, IDPs, and humanitarian and human rights officers over a seven- month period, the report finds that AU troops did not "stand by and just watch innocent people get slaughtered." While AU soldiers do not have the strength or authority to remove or disarm Janjaweed and other paramilitary forces from displaced persons' camps, they have "demonstrated a willingness to patrol, be visible and try to deter violence," according to the report.

To build on these achievements, the report recommends at the very least a 20,000 strong force with a more robust protection mandate. It offers three principal options to accomplish this:


1) provide the AU with the material and financial support to enable its force to grow and deploy rapidly;


2) merge the AU force with UN peacekeeping forces in southern Sudan, which would give the troops in Darfur the stronger mandate they need and allow the force to draw on the deeper peacekeeping resources and experience of the UN; and


3) call upon NATO or the European Union to contribute their own forces to reinforce the AU and assume responsibility for the operation.

Recommendations in the report to address the AU force's weaknesses include:


1. Increase logistical, transport and communications support to sustain additional troops and police and their accelerated transport to and throughout Darfur.


2. Strengthen AU headquarters' capacities in command, planning, and information management. Establish clear rules of engagement that authorize the AU to use force to protect civilians and IDPs in danger.


3. Improve operational capacities, in particular: additional aircraft and vehicles; satellite surveillance to enable quick reaction to threats to IDPs and peacekeepers; introduction of night patrols; a continuous presence in and around IDPs camps, especially those known to be high-risk (to date, there is AU 24-hour presence in only two camps).


4. Enlarge the civilian component of the AU mission with political affairs officers, humanitarian and human rights officers, and sexual and gender-based violence experts.


5. Close the gender imbalance of AU forces (out of 816 police, there are only 126 females, and out of 454 military observers, there are only two females). This will enable more effective handling of the widespread sexual and gender-based violence. Improve coordination and communication between the AU's troops and police and between AU forces and humanitarian workers whose operations the AU is supposed to safeguard.


6. Promote greater accountability of Sudanese soldiers and police through training programs and frank, public reporting by the AU of violations of the ceasefire, of interruptions in humanitarian aid efforts, and of abuses against civilians. Hold rebel forces to greater accountability. *William O'Neill, an international lawyer, trained the UN's human rights officers in Darfur, Sudan in 2005 and has served in senior positions with UN missions in Kosovo, Rwanda and Haiti.

*********************

And what follows is what White Western well equipped, trained, professional soldiers contributed in Darfur





***********

I rest my case...good luck

bartholomewbinn

gbh wrote: »

Talk about BS..it was primarily Asian troops who were implicated in abuses in Congo lets be clear...so you are definately racist if you keep saying that, which i think you are anyways, because the main gist of your argument is that US troops (who killed almost a 1000 civilians in mogadishu in one day and who have killed thousands of innocent people and caused the death of hundreds of thousands in iraq) are perfect, French troops who were seen manning checkpoints in Rwanda before, during and after the Genocide are perfect, Belgian troops who assasinated the president of congo are perfect, Asian troops who were implicated in child trafficking in congo are perfect, but African troops who are no better are worse and in a lot of cases better as peacekeepers are crooked and corrupt...give me a break..

Troops of African decent make up an unrepresentatively large part of the US armed forces, so that shoots your opinion that he is racist right out of the water.

Flying

cushtac wrote: »

The Liberia incident involved guys acting for the camera. The soldiers in question got the locals to lie down like they were shot, then they all stood back up laughing. It was stupid & immature, but it certainly wasn't threatening in nature. Had it been as big a deal as you want to make it out to be, the lads in question wouldn't have been just fined.

What's your own experience with the AU? You're very quick to rubbish the first-hand experiences of others but you've yet to tell us what makes an expert.

It was'nt exactly My-Lai was it :rolleyes:

Flying

GBH, as I said before indymedia is your stomping ground as wikipedia and the internet links you drag mean nada.

Your a bit like an Irish Politician keep telling the lie long enough and you will believe it.

African Troops in general are militias and sub standard thugs in uniform, so keep posting away as the fact speaks for themselves.

As for Liberia dont make me laugh, you have absolutely zero evidence of irish troops involved in anything so please do us all a favour and jog on like a good girl !

Cato

i think your overly defensive posts smack of trolling really.

Oh and i ****ing hate the play station.

@ OP i wouldn't join the AU, theres plenty more military establishments you could go to with better benefits and pay than AU, if joining up is really what you want.

milmo

gbh wrote: »

I'm not going to get into a stupid immature argument about who knows more about the AU. I know enough about it ok...I do happen to visit the site fairly regurlaly, do you?? I could ask you 20 questions on the organisation and i'm fairly sure you wouldnt be able to answer one which is the same for most people posting on this thread...They speak in generalisations, hearsay, opinion and allegations and not facts...

Again the point I make, is that the allegation which seems to be the allegation that aLL Au soldiers are rapists and torturers is laughable and beneath a proper reply and is basically racist.

There is no organisation noted more for abuses of local people than the UN in Africa, you should know that, and please don't deny it, its a proven fact.

and I include Irish soldiers who were in Ethopia a few years ago and charged with abuses of local women and girls.

Who is involved in several peace negotiations at the moment in Chad, Kenya, Somalia and elsewhere? the African Union.

Who was the first to send peacekeepers to Sudan? The African Union.

Who was on the way to the airport to fly to Chad when they heard a war had broken out and it was too dangerous to go? The Irish rangers, our best and finest, who were unwilling to go into a conflict zone because, well they might get hurt...says it all really about our army..avoid conflict zones at all costs.

Where is the Irish peace keeping force in Darfur? nowhere

The Americans got their asses whipped in Somalia and have no interest in losing one life to protect Africans, so get real please.

gbh,

Somebody wise once said never argue with fool as they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. For once, and I know I'll regret it, I'm going to ignore that advice because I must clarify some issues.

In my post I never made allegations about AU troops with respect to rape or torture. To blindly throw accusations of racism around is a tad irresponsible and ignorant.

The UN troops implicated in abuses of local populations predominately come from the countries that also contribute to the AU. The problems with certain national contingents serving under the UN flag stem from the UN's unwillingness to offend nations by being frank about their contingents shortcomings.

Irish troops have not been implicated in the abuse of women or children in Ethiopia or anywhere else. Your comments on the Rangers delayed deployment to Chad are infantile. There are sound military reasons for not dropping a small force in to a conflict zone without tactical or logistical support and a means of extraction.


I would suggest you read and attempt to understand the Brookings report you have quoted. Two of it's three recommendation are that the mission be subsumed by, and control be handed over to either the UN, EU or NATO. It also implies that that the AU mission doesn't have the material resources, or the command and planning capabilities to be effective. As a force it doesn't have clear rules of engagement and doesn't conduct night patrols. So what exactly are you basing your claims of AU competence on? Internet searches?

I've lived and worked in Africa for a period nothing in my experience bears any resemblance your fictional world view.

I feel dirty for letting myself get drawn into this national school rubbish:mad:

milmo

OP,

What ever gotten you interested in serving with the AU??

Cato

ive reported both your posts i dont want to argue here in this topic, if you want PM me. this isent even a discusion anymore you have hijacked the thread with your thickheadedness's