Capture of 45 Fiji troops in Syria raises questions about their role as UN peacekeepers

said Osnat Lubrani, the U.N. resident coordinator in Fiji. She addedthat "the intention of sending troops is that they are not meant to be in danger at all.


Tikoitoga said the Fijians were overmatched with the firepower of the insurgents and he agreed with the decision by the U.N. peacekeeping commander to surrender and turn over their weapons


The Philippine military says it defied a similar U.N. request to surrender when its troops were surrounded by the insurgents; they pulled off a daring escape instead. The Philippine military says a U.N. commander should be investigated as a result.

Capture of 45 Fiji troops in Syria raises questions about their role as UN peacekeepers

I didn't post this story because of Fiji or Philippine soldiers or Syria.

Examine closely the UN stance on Peacekeeping forces.

They are not supposed to be in harms way.....WHAT????

UN Peacekeeping commanders are ordering troops to surrender and give up their arms in what appears to be policy. The Fiji soldiers are now hostages to Al Nursra Front which is making demands to the UN for their release. The Philippine soldiers say their UN commander did the same thing to them but they ignored it and came up with an extraction plan and now want an investigation after seeing the same claims from Fiji.

This reeks of UN collusion with the extremists. They send a nations soldiers there, install commanders who will surrender, then the UN gets to give the extremists whatever their demands are to get the hostages back.

This is what a UN army of pawns looks like.

I find it highly unlikely there is any collusion going on between insurgent forces in Syria and the United Nation forces. It makes little sense to me. I do think that this situation could force action by UN nations, although it depends on how it plays out. Surrendering may have been militarily justified, considering they were surrounded. But considering the enemy, I personally do not feel surrender was an option. But they are UN troops, if that makes any difference. Their rules of engagement are likely different from that of a conventional army. They were definitely not a peacekeeping force, considering war had already broken out in the region. What the heck were they doing there in the first place? They should be investigating whoever sent them there. I still don't think collusion is that likely however.

a reply to: JiggyPotamus

The UN sent them there.

UN peace keepers in areas like golan are not meant to enforce the peace, they simply are their as observers. This is mainly because UN forces tend to be made up of light infantry. Those forces are in no way suppose to stop Israel or Syria from attacking each other. UN forces are simply not capable of combat against any real force. The UN would prefer the surrender and let diplomact take its course instead of putting up a fight and getting killed. Remeber the UN is not a military organization.

originally posted by: MrSpad
UN peace keepers in areas like golan are not meant to enforce the peace, they simply are their as observers. This is mainly because UN forces tend to be made up of light infantry. Those forces are in no way suppose to stop Israel or Syria from attacking each other. UN forces are simply not capable of combat against any real force. The UN would prefer the surrender and let diplomact take its course instead of putting up a fight and getting killed. Remeber the UN is not a military organization.

How convenient.
The story says the UN assigns commanders to these armed and trained foreign soldiers and in both cases the UN commanders ordered them to surrender. Obviously the commander was not ever present to become another beheading after years of confinement.
Other countries are pulling out or saying no to an obsolete mission of watching the Israeli Syrian border, the situation is Civil War there yet the UN continues on with the poorer nations armed troops creating a revolving door of extortion for the extremists. The UN proves yet again they are not good for much, except excelling at corruption.

Observers? What the heck are they observing? Put up cameras if you want to observe. A ridiculous concept.

Deployed troops not supposed to be in danger? What does that mean? If there is no danger, send anybody.

Surrender and let the diplomats work it out? How many diplomats do these numerous fighting forces in the ME have?

If you wanted to create a more absurd and tragic tale, one would be hard pressed.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: MrSpad
UN peace keepers in areas like golan are not meant to enforce the peace, they simply are their as observers. This is mainly because UN forces tend to be made up of light infantry. Those forces are in no way suppose to stop Israel or Syria from attacking each other. UN forces are simply not capable of combat against any real force. The UN would prefer the surrender and let diplomact take its course instead of putting up a fight and getting killed. Remeber the UN is not a military organization.

How convenient.
The story says the UN assigns commanders to these armed and trained foreign soldiers and in both cases the UN commanders ordered them to surrender. Obviously the commander was not ever present to become another beheading after years of confinement.
Other countries are pulling out or saying no to an obsolete mission of watching the Israeli Syrian border, the situation is Civil War there yet the UN continues on with the poorer nations armed troops creating a revolving door of extortion for the extremists. The UN proves yet again they are not good for much, except excelling at corruption.

Well having worked with the UN before nobody takes orders from the UN commander without checking with home first. It is one of the many thing that makes UN forces nearly impossible to command. Unless a UN mission is simply stamping its backing on a US or Western military operation most of the countries who offer troop are very poor and simply looking to have somebody else pay those troops for awhile.

The UN is not NATO. These forces have no ability to work to together, are poorly trained and are meant to put into areas to maintain and monitor peace not create or enforce it. Again the UN is not a military organization. It does not fight wars. None of this new. The UN is never going to tell peace keepers to fight a battle against a superior enemy and get wiped out. It simply is not going to happen.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

This is one of those times I'm with you Tinfoil...



Nice Find and what the UN are doing who really knows. All I know is they are powerless when it comes to stopping wars.

This is very interesting , because as I type this im sitting in the airport waiting for my plane to go to FIJI for my honeymoon. Will be interesting to hear if any of the locals are talking about this.

I was not even aware that Fiji had any people in the UN forces

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: MrSpad
UN peace keepers in areas like golan are not meant to enforce the peace, they simply are their as observers. This is mainly because UN forces tend to be made up of light infantry. Those forces are in no way suppose to stop Israel or Syria from attacking each other. UN forces are simply not capable of combat against any real force. The UN would prefer the surrender and let diplomact take its course instead of putting up a fight and getting killed. Remeber the UN is not a military organization.

How convenient.
The story says the UN assigns commanders to these armed and trained foreign soldiers and in both cases the UN commanders ordered them to surrender. Obviously the commander was not ever present to become another beheading after years of confinement.
Other countries are pulling out or saying no to an obsolete mission of watching the Israeli Syrian border, the situation is Civil War there yet the UN continues on with the poorer nations armed troops creating a revolving door of extortion for the extremists. The UN proves yet again they are not good for much, except excelling at corruption.

Well having worked with the UN before nobody takes orders from the UN commander without checking with home first. It is one of the many thing that makes UN forces nearly impossible to command. Unless a UN mission is simply stamping its backing on a US or Western military operation most of the countries who offer troop are very poor and simply looking to have somebody else pay those troops for awhile.

The UN is not NATO. These forces have no ability to work to together, are poorly trained and are meant to put into areas to maintain and monitor peace not create or enforce it. Again the UN is not a military organization. It does not fight wars. None of this new. The UN is never going to tell peace keepers to fight a battle against a superior enemy and get wiped out. It simply is not going to happen.

Those are good points for the situation.

So the UN dangles the soldier pay carrot to the poor nations, then sends them off to a Civil War region with a policy of surrender first (even though it is against their mission statement to not send them in danger). This leads to these already poor nations dealing with extortion. The UN is also being demanded to take the extortionists off of the terror list. This will in turn lead to nations like Fiji to back UN diplomatic moves to aid these terror networks. There is a cycle of use any means to the ends politics at the UN level playing out here.

This reminds me of the Ukraine situation and the UN helicopter a reply to: TinfoilTP

The whole "Peacekeeper" mission brief is laughable!
No interference or intervention, not even for their own protection unless authorised by some idiot far removed from the dangers.

If peacekeeper troops are to be deployed in the first place, they should have a full mandate to apply force to either side that is seen instigating or carrying out attacks, and full rapid deployment of backup and air cover if needed. Simple! No messing, and non-biased, until both sides see sense and quit.

As it is, their role as "observers" means they can get shot at by both sides if hostilities start up.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: MrSpad
UN peace keepers in areas like golan are not meant to enforce the peace, they simply are their as observers. This is mainly because UN forces tend to be made up of light infantry. Those forces are in no way suppose to stop Israel or Syria from attacking each other. UN forces are simply not capable of combat against any real force. The UN would prefer the surrender and let diplomact take its course instead of putting up a fight and getting killed. Remeber the UN is not a military organization.

How convenient.
The story says the UN assigns commanders to these armed and trained foreign soldiers and in both cases the UN commanders ordered them to surrender. Obviously the commander was not ever present to become another beheading after years of confinement.
Other countries are pulling out or saying no to an obsolete mission of watching the Israeli Syrian border, the situation is Civil War there yet the UN continues on with the poorer nations armed troops creating a revolving door of extortion for the extremists. The UN proves yet again they are not good for much, except excelling at corruption.

Well having worked with the UN before nobody takes orders from the UN commander without checking with home first. It is one of the many thing that makes UN forces nearly impossible to command. Unless a UN mission is simply stamping its backing on a US or Western military operation most of the countries who offer troop are very poor and simply looking to have somebody else pay those troops for awhile.

The UN is not NATO. These forces have no ability to work to together, are poorly trained and are meant to put into areas to maintain and monitor peace not create or enforce it. Again the UN is not a military organization. It does not fight wars. None of this new. The UN is never going to tell peace keepers to fight a battle against a superior enemy and get wiped out. It simply is not going to happen.

Those are good points for the situation.

So the UN dangles the soldier pay carrot to the poor nations, then sends them off to a Civil War region with a policy of surrender first (even though it is against their mission statement to not send them in danger). This leads to these already poor nations dealing with extortion. The UN is also being demanded to take the extortionists off of the terror list. This will in turn lead to nations like Fiji to back UN diplomatic moves to aid these terror networks. There is a cycle of use any means to the ends politics at the UN level playing out here.

I am not sure what your getting at. You seem to see a plot where the fact is UN peacekeepers have a history of, well peace. When they end up in an area that mission is no longer going to be one of peacekeeping and becomes combat they will leave. This is likely what we will see in this area, unless some member of the UN wants to step and offer some real combat forces which nobody ever does for the UN. And thier policy is not surrender first but, it is one of not having peace keepers stand and fight in a losing battle. Then you have a bunch of dead peace keepers, an angry enemy and a bunch of captured UN peace keepers anyway. So all you have done is reduce the chance of those peace keepers ever getting out alive. The vast majority of the time whoever has taken peace keepers just let them go free and clear. Because they do not come from great powers they hold no real value as hostages and the UN will not pay for them or cut any deals for them simply because the UN does not have that power without the approval of its member nations. And the great powers of the secutity council are not going to change policy or cut a deal for peace keepers from Fiji. So pretty much the UN will talk to the people holding them and when the figure out they are going to get nothing for them they let them go. So no this silly idea that this is a plot to fund terror networks has no basis in reality.