UN troops failed 242 women and children who suffered a mass rape attack in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), a top UN peacekeeping official has said.
Congo hosts the largest and most costly UN peacekeeping mission in the world, but the mass rape attacks happened just 30km from a UN base some time between July 30 and August 3 in the North Kivu region.
“Our actions were not adequate, resulting in the unacceptable brutalisation of villages in the area,” Atul Khare, under-secretary general for peacekeeping operations, told the UN Security Council on Tuesday.
He said that government of the DRC holds the primary responsibility for security in the area, but acknowledged that “Clearly, we have also failed”.
The area was reportedly over-run by rebels from neighbouring Rwanda and Congolese Mai Mai militia.
My Comments:
It is truly sad and despondent to see how helpless United Nations can be at times. I often wonder what is the purpose and significance of the UN since it has always failed to protect the innocent.
That is absolutely true, yet the unanswered question remains, WHY?
May because, the institute has been set by the winners of WW2 with the prime objective ( not the charter) to rule the world from this institute... and by looking at the history of UNO my point requires no prove.... UNO has backed or not objected on any war benefiting the west, whereas it has not solved any issue which may go against the western powers or have no impact on them... The weapons to these Africans war-torn nation is supplied by these western powers.. if there is no civil wars there, then who is going to buy those weapons.... and list goes on
Yeah that is a seriously problem with DRC. DRC has a huge problem when it comes to the information gap between what is going on, on the ground and what is happening in the capital.
To correct to Hanibal, the UN vetoed the war on Iraq. They said no it was illegal. Kofi Annan did as well on Hard Talk. He then got fired. The problem with a uni-polar world is that the US can dictate without suffering any repercussions.
More than half of the UN troops in Congo came from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Given how racist desis can be to blacks, I’m not surprised that the mission was ineffectual.
I believe it was 2005. France and Russia refused to endorse a UNSC resolution allowing the US to attack Iraq. Powell gave his infamous fake evidence then. You forgot all of this?
I believe it was 2005. France and Russia refused to endorse a UNSC resolution allowing the US to attack Iraq. Powell gave his infamous fake evidence then. You forgot all of this?
A resolution was never actually put up to a vote though is my point. Let's not change history.
Yeah that doesn't change the official statements by France and Russia who categorically stated in the Press and UNSC in official statements that they would veto it. Lets not rewrite history either.
More than half of the UN troops in Congo came from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Given how racist desis can be to blacks, I'm not surprised that the mission was ineffectual.
I am not sure about the descriptive statistics of the UN forces in Congo yet by considering UN histogram spanning over decades it would perhaps be a profound realization of the fact that UN was created by the mighty to defend, support and back interests of the mighty right or wrong, by maltreating and exploiting the feeble. I do not agree with you at least regarding Pakistanis being bias to blacks or to any one else for that matter, however, I do agree, that this is somewhat a racism issue nevertheless it is, in its broader context an issue of UN rather being prostrated by the mighty so it is never able to enforce its own resolutions such as the famous 1948 resolution on Kashmir, dozens of resolutions on Palestine and yada yada yada.
Yeah that doesn't change the official statements by France and Russia who categorically stated in the Press and UNSC in official statements that they would veto it. Lets not rewrite history either.
Just pointing out that the UN did not veto the war on Iraq.
Yeah that is a seriously problem with DRC. DRC has a huge problem when it comes to the information gap between what is going on, on the ground and what is happening in the capital.
**
To correct to Hanibal, the UN vetoed the war on Iraq. They said no it was illegal. Kofi Annan did as well on Hard Talk. He then got fired. The problem with a uni-polar world is that the US can dictate without suffering any repercussions**.
U r right, but did that stopped the war? it is said that over million people died so far in the conflict, i don't know the number of people effected by this illegal war.. yet UNO just stood their and watched everything...
To my understanding, UNO is an independent entity founded to work for peace in the world, so far, Americans, Israel, Russians etc have treated it like their KEEP... Americans are in war ever since 2nd world war is over... not single decade without a war.... Russians are the same, they still can attack any country and no body can do anything... Israel, do everything which is known as crime against humanity... they shoot at peace delegation/convoy.. yet UNO chooses to turn a blind-eye to them...
but if their is a tower building get thrashed... and if America blames someone, UNO never asks for proves...
Just pointing out that the UN did not veto the war on Iraq.
LOL. Yeah you stick to your story. I stick with the facts.
Actually the UN is not an independent entity. It is two halves that have very very different agendas. The UN - or what people call the UN is known as the Secretariat. That is UN staff works at the behest of the national Governments. Be it field missions or Geneva. The second portion that people do not know about is the political aspect. You see the UN is not run by the Secretary General. It is run by Pakistan, the US, Chile, South Africa etc. These governments decide what the UN can and can not do. They decide in the UNSC and UNGA. Basically 192 countries sit down. Negotiate. Decide what they want to do and then tell the UN what they should do.
That is why the US never got the legal authority to attack Iraq. That is why the war in Iraq and the actions of the US armed forces by law are illegal, crimes against humanity and the insurgency is actually a legally acceptable form of resistance according to the UN charter.
Actually the UN is not an independent entity. It is two halves that have very very different agendas. The UN - or what people call the UN is known as the Secretariat. That is UN staff works at the behest of the national Governments. Be it field missions or Geneva. The second portion that people do not know about is the political aspect. You see the UN is not run by the Secretary General. It is run by Pakistan, the US, Chile, South Africa etc. These governments decide what the UN can and can not do. They decide in the UNSC and UNGA. Basically 192 countries sit down. Negotiate. Decide what they want to do and then tell the UN what they should do.
That is why the US never got the legal authority to attack Iraq. That is why the war in Iraq and the actions of the US armed forces by law are illegal, crimes against humanity and the insurgency is actually a legally acceptable form of resistance according to the UN charter.
Thank you for the info...
so if somehow, muslim countries get in the roles of what the western powers have today, the role of UN would be changed! i.e., would work as per the agenda/interest of the muslim countries?
Yes and no. We already play a role. All Muslim countries are represented. The problem is save for Egypt and Iran the Arab do jack ****. They rather get drunk and sleep with whores when they are in New york for meetings and such. Complete and utter waste of space they are. Sometimes we would joke around that all the arab countries should hand over their Foreign Policy issues to Pakistan. At least then something would go right.
Very well. I will let you have this one. Yes technically I was incorrect as the vote never happened. As the US knew if the vote did happened. It would be vetoed.
Very well. I will let you have this one. Yes technically I was incorrect as the vote never happened. As the US knew if the vote did happened. It would be vetoed.
Yes most likely that would have been the case, unless last minute large concessions were given for the votes. We will never know.