Africa Heats Up; UN forces fire on east Congo rebels

Whoda Thunk it? I really didn't think they had it in them. The UN fired on people? Even people killing civilians? Goodness... Stop the presses and reprint the headlines! We have news made THIS day!!

GOMA, Congo (AP) — U.N. and Congolese army officials say that a new U.N. intervention brigade in eastern Congo has fired on M23 rebels for the first time.

The development came Friday, a day after mortar shells rained on homes in several residential neighborhoods of Goma. At least four civilians were killed in the violence.

Source: Associated Press

The material I watched last semester in courses that touched on current African events indicated the UN is on the right side of this one. I'm just surprised they knew how to load and fire rounds! Really! They get trained to shoot what they carry?

After how many "UN Missions" have done nothing at all more than watch people die they were supposed to be protecting, and especially across Central Africa, this is a very welcome change. If they are going to be in a place with military weapons, they need to take a side when innocents are being slaughtered in front of them.

This time, they did. It's about time.

next step?
1) UN force neutralizes rebels, bring peace.
or
2) UN apologizes for violence, tells pckeepers to stand down

not surprisingly, this doesn't seem to be getting much coverage in Big Media.

here's hoping they Do the Right Thing and bring about some actual peace.
thx for posting

reply to post by wrabbit2000


Having worked with UN forces before it is a total nightmare. Not only do they have all the UN regulations to follow, they also have all the rules their own nations has put on them. While they are "under UN command" they still call home and clear everything with their own people before they do anything. It is the most frustrating thing you can imagine to deal with. This why I always have a good laugh at the people who think that UN troops are going to take over the US. Don't get me wrong the UN does do some things very well, providing medical and food aid and provoding a international platform to deal with global issued. These are things they do well and are good things for the world. However, any kind of military operation that is they try to run is always a mess. To me it is awalys better to have someone else like NATO or the AU conduct the operation with UN political and logistical support that have the UN run it.

"The material I watched last semester in courses that touched on current African events indicated the UN is on the right side of this one."

I'm disappointed Wrabbit. Since you don't seem to be a stupid person, I can only conclude that you have joined the dark side.

The U.N. is never on the right side. They prop up/champion the side whose interests align with their own. Period.

As if you don't know that.

reply to post by MrSpad


On this, we agree. Part of the course stuff was a a video of an interview with a UN Commander of mission for one of the Peacekeeping Missions in Central Africa that went to massacres among the locals. The guy seemed destroyed inside from what happened and very bitter. The UN in New York had pretty much deprived him of the ability to so much as have a couple guys talking to locals for info in a casual way. That was too much like an intelligence section to the UN mission .. a peacekeeping mission, so he had been told. They were absolutely dead serious too...which he followed. You could see the ruin in this eyes in the interview. That can't much be faked.

That was something to show a perspective I'd really not seen before and the media sure doesn't report. They make them sound like the answer to everything and able to leap tall tragedies in a single deployment and, much like you say, it sounded to me like they are more like emasculated observers and targets in BRIGHT White vehicles to get shot at with few, if any options to react. At least in any way which matters.

That's why this came as a surprise to see.

reply to post by curiouscanadian777


People say this every so often and I shake my head, frankly. I don't have allegiance to any one party or ideology. Not entirely, and I haven't in a long time. I'm as conservative as a hangman at times, when it comes to matters of law and order, especially on violent or deviant crime. At the same time, I can be somewhat liberal on social issues. I think abortion ought to remain legal and accessible but with some restrictions. That isn't to side track on either of those things, but to note, I don't pigeon hole into anything. I take each thing I find in stories and events on their own merit as much as considering connections.

A lot of what is happening in Central Africa is barbaric and horrific. Much from local vs. local tribal and political stuff. "Tears of The Sun" was one of the best, yet least entertaining movies I've ever seen Bruce Willis in. It was also pretty accurate to the real documentary type footage the course showed of real victims all over that region.

If the UN can do something meaningful to tone it down by diplomacy OR force, it's only for the better of the locals who have been through far far too much misery for anyone to get in a lifetime.

Originally posted by wrabbit2000
reply to post by MrSpad

 

On this, we agree. Part of the course stuff was a a video of an interview with a UN Commander of mission for one of the Peacekeeping Missions in Central Africa that went to massacres among the locals. The guy seemed destroyed inside from what happened and very bitter. The UN in New York had pretty much deprived him of the ability to so much as have a couple guys talking to locals for info in a casual way. That was too much like an intelligence section to the UN mission .. a peacekeeping mission, so he had been told. They were absolutely dead serious too...which he followed. You could see the ruin in this eyes in the interview. That can't much be faked.

That was something to show a perspective I'd really not seen before and the media sure doesn't report. They make them sound like the answer to everything and able to leap tall tragedies in a single deployment and, much like you say, it sounded to me like they are more like emasculated observers and targets in BRIGHT White vehicles to get shot at with few, if any options to react. At least in any way which matters.

That's why this came as a surprise to see.

Also often the forces are made up of poorly trained, poorly motivated troops and often they are out gunned. Unless a Wester power is a major troop contributer the force is often not able to defend itself much less others. The idea is of course, if you attack UN forces that international outrage will follow and major power like the US, UK, or France will notice and get involved. So its kind of psychological tool that although this force may not be something you fear if you mess with it then it may bring forces you do. They work best in areas where they are mostly backing up local forces and working as observers or maintaining order. As a combat force they are severly lacking. Do not get me wrong those peacekeepets have some balls. Some poor suckers like say a company from Nepal are up dropped off in the middle of a civil war in Africa where they out numbered 10 to 1 and out gunned and expected to maintain the peace and they give it their best shot. Honestly if the fear of bringing in Western powers was not their we most likely see UN forces getting slaughtered all over the place.

reply to post by MrSpad


Indeed... I can't help but think back to the events of Somalia. Not Black Hawk Down for the great movie they got out of it, but the long period of trying and failing and failing yet again between UN and Western powers. I think I learned young from watching that. It's real easy to overestimate the 'power' of the UN...and they readily encourage the illusion. It helps cover what they don't actually have. They sure could screw up a lemonade stand and leave the place a ruin at the end though.