Quote:

---

Originally posted by Daikath:
Do I need to remind everyone he won the Nobel peace prize?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Ha, ha, ha! Ha, ha, ha!

Oh, sorry, I mean...

Ho, ho, ho! Bhwaaaa!

No, it's really not funny.

Chortle!

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BarnStormer:
All joking aside, I posted this because I'm more than a bit bitter about how the UN has been working.

It's a wonderfull idea, but it does'nt work. It's broken and needs to be fixed.

---

Quote:

---

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Daikath:
Do I need to remind everyone he won the Nobel peace prize?

---

Quote:

---

Tom Lehrer:
It was at that moment that satire died. There was nothing more to say after that.
When Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973. Lehrer decided he could no longer perform.

---

Quote:

---

United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said there is clear evidence that UN staff sexually abused refugees in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Allegations of abuse at UN camps surfaced last year, prompting the UN's internal watchdog to launch an inquiry.

After being briefed on its progress, Mr Annan said a small number of civilian and military personnel had committed "shameful" acts of gross misconduct.

He added that those involved must be held accountable.

Two years ago, a UN investigation rejected similar allegations of sexual exploitation of refugees by UN staff in West Africa.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Actually after General Dallaire requested more troops to be attached to the mission, the idea went before the security council. Once there the US and Britain not only shot down any of their troops becoming involved, but also prevented the expansion of the mission. By stopping the proposal the way they did, nobody could send troops ... under the UN flag anyway

I am not a Kofi fan, but let him be blamed for that which he did...

" Don't Blame Me I Voted For Kudos "

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Connorflynn:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Actually after General Dallaire requested more troops to be attached to the mission, the idea went before the security council. Once there the US and Britain not only shot down any of their troops becoming involved, but also prevented the expansion of the mission. By stopping the proposal the way they did, nobody could send troops ... under the UN flag anyway

I am not a Kofi fan, but let him be blamed for that which he did...

" Don't Blame Me I Voted For Kudos "

---

Somehow I knew this was America and Great Britain's fault. Sad really.. I wonder how many troops Canada sent?

It's strange really..somehow every other political leader is supposed to be held accountable for their underlings actions, but good ole innocent, clean uncorrupt Kofi is being thrown to the dogs unfairly. It's too bad really.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
My point is not to slam the US for not sending troops, that is your affair,

my point is the way the security council functions, and the manner in which the vote to expand the mission happened, by using the veto the way they did, the US and Britian effectively killed the effort to find outside troops to send.

It was as much a fault in the way the UN and the security council works, but the US and Britain could have approved the mission change and then declined to offer troops.

Canada commanded the mission, but it was an ineffective mission to begin with, in addition we were also had troops commited to Bosnia, as well as Somalia ( which ended shortly before Rwanda started )

With the mission change France said after that vote they would commit a number of troops, so there was an interest, but the problem with the UN and non-unilateral action is that everyone has to give a nod, even if that is all you give.

Bill Clinton recently during a tour of Rwanda apologized to the people there for his part in this,

Many good books I could suggest to anyone who is intersting in Rwanda, and peacekeeping in general.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
This is an issue on which I have no inforamtion and no set opinion, but I do have some??

If the UN were to really function to keep the peace, wouldn't it need some pretty serious levers? An army greater than any single army? Nuclear weapons enough to threaten the largest arsenal? A bank that could yank loans at will?

Somehow, I just can't imagine the really big nations allowing that, so given the UN's relative powerlessness, how do you think they COULD fill their mandate?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
This is an issue on which I have no inforamtion and no set opinion, but I do have some??

If the UN were to really function to keep the peace, wouldn't it need some pretty serious levers? An army greater than any single army? Nuclear weapons enough to threaten the largest arsenal? A bank that could yank loans at will?

Somehow, I just can't imagine the really big nations allowing that, so given the UN's relative powerlessness, how do you think they COULD fill their mandate?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
This is an issue on which I have no inforamtion and no set opinion, but I do have some??

If the UN were to really function to keep the peace, wouldn't it need some pretty serious levers? An army greater than any single army? Nuclear weapons enough to threaten the largest arsenal? A bank that could yank loans at will?

Somehow, I just can't imagine the really big nations allowing that, so given the UN's relative powerlessness, how do you think they COULD fill their mandate?

---

There are many problems with the UN and with peacekeeping,

One problem which was especially clear in the opening stage of the Rwanda operation is the nature of peacekeeping forces. Most political types seem to view the ideal peacekeeper as a paramilitary policeman. This is wrong.

The best peacekeepers are well trained, well disciplined professional soldiers.

Two, Rwanda featured a number of supporting countrys, many of them from the third world. When Canadian General Dallaire took command in Rwanda and the troops began to deploy, he found that much of his force wasn't trained, had poor equipment if any, didn't communicate well, etc

This problem should be addressed by establishing a standing UN force. If I had the position to make futher suggestions I would create a provisional battalion attached to the Canadian Forces Battle School in Wainwright Alberta. I would try to take in troops from a dozen or so third world countrys, add a cadre and specialized troops ( enginners, medics, signals ) from Canada, Europe, Russia, China, Japan, etc. The UN buys the equipment and they train...

If all the problems are worked out and a deployable force is built, I would suggest that two additional battalions be formed. One perhaps based at one of the soon to be empty US bases in Germany, and one in Asia.

With a three battalion system, a training rotation could be established so that one will be completely mission ready, one will be in a training stage, and one will be recruiting and forming.

A one year posting to this unit may or not see deployment, but at that point the troops go back to their host countrys .

I could go on, but this would only solve the miltary aspect. The political " will " must also be there, these type of changes to the UN would involve a modification to the UN charter, I would be a little over my head getting into that.

But the security council veto would have to be eliminated.

---