UN reports over 500 rapes in eastern Congo

UN reports over 500 rapes in eastern Congo

www.independent.co.uk

The United Nations reported yesterday that more than 500 systematic rapes were committed by armed combatants in eastern Congo since late July — more than double the number previously reported — and accepted partial responsibility for not protecting citizens.

in addition to 242 rapes earlier reported in and around Luvungi, a village of about 2,200 people

Khare told reporters after the council session that over 15,000 rapes were reported in Congo in both 2008 and 2009.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Isn't it about time that we realized that the UN is a completely worthless entity? Here you have 500 women raped in the past 2 months in a country where the UN has a stationed force? 10% of the people in one single town, which is likely 20% of the women.

They estimate that this is being done by a mere few thousands of people in Congo, yet the UN, with its $billions can't step in and stop it?

The UN can not have it both ways. It can't sit back and suggest that they need to respect the sovergnity of the nation state while simultaneously getting involved in "keeping the peace".

"very frank, comprehensive and illuminating" and said she looked forward to more sessions examining ways to prevent future mass rapes in Congo." This is the kind of rubbish that comes out of the UN. Get more sessions booked and more studies prepared while rape is used as an instrument of war.

Here is another beauty ""The sad reality is that incidents of rape have become so commonplace that they do not trigger our most urgent interventions."

With all of this going on, you have the US Secretary of State condemming Arizona's immigration law in a report to the UN. The whole business is something out of Kafka.

Why the African National Congress does not go in and do something about this tragedy is yet another issue.

It is time to disband the UN. If they can not thwart the actions of a few thousand people engaged in war crimes, they are worthless.

www.independent.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by dolphinfan

LAST MONTH A CLASSIFIED UNITED Nations report prompted Secretary General Kofi Annan to admit that U.N. peacekeepers and staff have sexually abused or exploited war refugees in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

www.weeklystandard.com...

Do you really want more UN troops there??
This is from 2005 but nothing much changes in the UN..

S&F

[edit on 8-9-2010 by CynicalM]

reply to post by CynicalM


No. I don't think the UN should have troops at all. They clearly should not be placing themselves to be an agent of change/peace keeping when they don't have the spine or ability to solve what is actually a pretty easy problem in the grand scheme of things.

What we all should not be doing is wringing our hands regarding the matter. It should be stopped or we should accept the fact that it is going on.

reply to post by dolphinfan


The fact that it's going on is well accepted..

Africa's problem is that there is no reason for the corporations to want it to change.
Its much easier for them to get what they want by way of resources, by dealing with chiefs and kings of small areas..

If Africa ever united then I bet the US etc would suddenly see a reason to "help".

Thats my sad opinion..

reply to post by dolphinfan


Obviously, being such a well-informed critic of the UN, you would be aware they don't have any troops! I am also sure you're aware the UN is controlled by the UNSC and of course, you will also be aware of who, exactly, wields veto powers when it comes to any decision making.

Let me guess, you're from the US and think the UN os some huge transnational Government with it's own army, who's ultimate aim is to usurp the "constitutional" Government of the good ol' USA? I bet you freak out at the thought of foreign troops on US soil too, don't you?

For the most part, the soldiers doing such tasks (peacekppeing in Africa) are either from other African nations or developing countries, because the big Western powers (especially the US) do not like donating their troops to the cause, so they pay the poorer nations to do their dirty work, via the UN.

This usually leads to "poor quality" soldiers from lower ranked nations and, unfortunately, discipline is often quite poor too, hence some abuses occur.

Obviously, had these been US/Western forces, then no such abuses would ever have happened and it would all be sorted by now, wouldn't it?

(that last bit was sarcasm, by the way!)


[edit on 8/9/10 by stumason]

reply to post by stumason


lol, I was all ready to post a nasty comment till the last line..

But there have been some western and european troops there with the same result...

reply to post by CynicalM


Exactly. You get bad apples the world over and in all walks of life. Place those bad apples in a strange and often stressful situation and bad things can happen.

To paint the UN as some homogenous beast with it's own forces which perpeutate rape and child buggery is silly and shows a complete lack of understanding sabout what the UN is, what it does and who controls it.

reply to post by stumason


I must state, I am not a huge fan of the UN although I guess they have probably help a little..

Their hands are tied with money, troops and BS veto powers..

Not my idea of democracy...

With these kinds of things going on, how is it we, the "greatest" country, (US), can do absolutely nothing about Africa and the well-known horrors there?

It seems since the famines of the 1980's, we in the Western world have seen images of great struggle and suffering, yet we do nothing as a government, and seem unwilling or unable to rectify this inequity.

Praying for those people, at least I can do that, personally.

I have no respect for our government because of Africa, period. For decades, our "power" is absolutely useless and pointless in the face of their suffering, so that "power" is without authority, except in the barest sense of the word.

On behalf of rape victims everywhere, but especially in poor Africa, I thank you for posting this.

It is too bad they they don't have big oil fields, we could have gave that country 'democracy' long ago.

reply to post by stumason


That is simply incorrect. There are currently 22,000 UN Peacekeeping forces on the ground in Congo with 19,900 being military personnel. Their stated objective is to contain the civil unrest and protect human rights using "all necessary force". Clearly they are failing.

There are another 6 UN Peacekeeping missions going on in Africa at the moment.

The UN Peacekeeping operation has a total of 125,000 personnel, excluding ancilliary forces.

That sounds like an army to me.

www.un.org...

Now perhaps you are supportive of feel-good efforts and standing armys that are absent clear accountability, but I am not.

The UN is a joke. If you're so fired up about the UN, grab yourself a blue helmet and get in there and do a bit of peacekeeping

reply to post by dolphinfan


Again, you obviously don't understand what you're talking about.

The UN has no forces of it's own, I clearly stated above how they put together a pecekeeping force and you've willfully ignored it to continue preaching your mantra. Go an educate yourself on how the UN works before bitching about it.

reply to post by stumason


I know exactly how the UN works. Member nations supply troops to serve on "peacekeeping" missions and they are led by officers of the armed forces of member nations. They wear UN uniforms and are under the command of UN commanders.

What do you figure they are doing with soldiers, filling in potholes?

How about you educate yourself and read the UN website, specifically the lengthy section on UN Peacekeeping

Its not that these woman in Congo get raped only; after the gang rape they are systematic mutilated by the rebels. The most common methode is penetration with manchette.
I have seen a documentary about a Congolees doctor specialized in restoring the womens genitalia.
The cruelty is enormous and the world is doing nothing. I ve been in Congo myself. Its hell and can be extremely dangerous and corrupt.

If there is one country the US should invade its Congo, not Iran.

reply to post by dolphinfan


So, to completely debunk you post yourself, you admit the UN has no standing Army? You said that.

Also, they are NOT led by UN officers. They are led by their own officers. Seems you still have some education to catch up on. The UN has no military force of it's own, whatsoever!

Point being, like I said in my first post, is you get bad apples and unfortunately, the countries that actually cough up troops tend to be the ones with piss-poor human rights records of their own, because the "better" militaries (whose own standards slip from time to time) refuse to contribute troops.

However, these "better" countries sit on the UNSC and are happy to pass resolutions demanding Peacekeeping forces be sent and then "reimburse" the donor nations for their contribution all the while tying the hands of the UN force so it is as effective as a chocolate fire-guard so they can get all 5 veto wielding powers to agree. The end result, an ineffective mandate using ineffecvtive and usually poorly-disciplined forces all to serve wider geo-pollitical interests.

Not the fault of the UN, per se, but rather the big 5. Of course, you know who they are and the shennanigans they get up to with regards to passing resolutuons.

reply to post by stumason


Let me make this super easy for you.

During the World Cup or the Olympics, countries have teams, the players of which have been gathered from that particular nation. All of them play for various teams, in many cases not in their home country, and are selected to play for the national team, that national team being that of their home nation. That country has a designated coach/manager for the team who directs the efforts of the team, makes player selection, develops and executes game plans, etc.

Does that country have a team? Yes it does. Is the coach leading that team? Yes he is. Does the team engage in activity with a direct purpose? Yes it does. When the series of games, be them the Olympics or World Cup be completed do those players go back to the teams they were previously on? Yes

The nature of the UN Peacekeeping forces is exactly the same

I have to agree with Stu mason on this one !!

I feel the UN is actually a 'toothless' organisation more concerned with image and headlines as opposed to direct action..

We all know the Americans and British are the world Police with others chipping in from the sides.. The Russians and Chinese 'Heckle' at them, a little like trouble makers on a street corner But when push comes to shove, The West acts usually with a motive.

The UN inAfrica is made up of other nations troops under the guidance of their own officers (?) and leaders and they try to adhere to a UN mandate , which as I said above is 'toothless'..

The UN lost all 'strength' when it was based in America and has been consistently underfunded ever since.............

We need a 'Thunderbirds' like organisation to POLICE the world.......

ALSO, on the subject title, I find it amazing that the other story on here about Drunk Canadian youths commiting a sex act on a playing field is attracting more views than the 500 RAPES committed in an African country.............

Funny that ???????? (Sarcasim as well)

Regards

PurpleDOG UK

reply to post by PurpleDog UK


I think this is a semantic argument. The UN has troops at its disposal, the organization and leadership is murky and certainly ineffective.

The point here is that with the level of attrocities being committed in places where the UN has forces/a presence clearly it is unable to fulfill a mission. That either needs to be fixed or those peacekeeping forces disbanded.

I totally agree with all points made about the politics, both within Africa and the UN generally being a major cause of the problem.

At the end, the UN must stand for something other than lofty speaches, reports and studies. If that is all that it can do, so be it. Redefine the charter and properly set expectations.

Whether or not the civilized world chooses to develop some mechanism to deal with situations like the Congo is another issue.

So not to mke light of this, as it is a serious problem, why on earth woud the U.S. go there? Given that people all the world over decry us everytime we do anything, do we really need the hassle? I know the U.S. has commited some bad things over the years, but no matter what, good or bad, we're made out to be the bad guys. If we went there, it wuld be our gault this was happening, and since it's mostly people of color affected, we'd be labeled racist for allowing it to happen. On the other side, suppose someone was killed as a result of the U.S. involvement....now we have an oh look, America is killing black people groove going on. NOPE, let the un handle it, and forget about us interveneing, we have no business there.