Can U.N. officials ever be prosecuted ?

[syzygy]

particularly kofi annan for decisions made that resulted in the deaths of many civilians, even genocide.

cases:

1- cambodia - kowtowing to hun sen, a former khmer rouge genocidaire, now cambodian premier.
2- rwanda - ignoring dallaire. his forces move out. genocide ensues.
3- srebenica - u.n. 'safe haven'. u.n. is an avowed neutral party when the serbs are the clear aggressors. 5000 dead, countless other war crimes.
4- iraq - toothless resolution strategy that never effectively addressed saddam's grip on power, sustaining and prolonging civilian suffering.

u.n. officials never fired a shot against these people. indeed, the u.n. was ostensively working to help them. yet their decisions were so neglectful
of the facts on the ground and were on occasion in total disregard of assessments made by their own personnel in the region that they resulted
in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

there are also cases where the u.n. continues to intervene as a neutral party despite having to work with dictators who manipulate diplomatic
niceties to enhance their control over a region and a people. yet u.n. policies and engagement strategies, still, do not change.

the u.n. is placed in such critical positions where they are usually the last line of defense against certain destruction. information and intelligence,
at least in the cases above, were not lacking. the u.n.'s own people warned their leadership of impending doom but were ignored. dallaire pleaded.
srebenica's observers pleaded. hun sen ran wild over the opposition before the eyes of u.n. observers. saddam used resolutions as toilet paper.

something more - much more - could have been done in the estimation of the u.n.'s own foot soldiers, caught as they were on the ground, in
the middle of these man-made disasters.

i think this constitues not only failed policies but, given their continued implementation in the face of accumulating death, some sort of crime as
well.

what do you think ?

 

[Dari]

I believe they have diplomatic immunity. Anyhow, if they smelled hunters, they would escape back to their home country on "personal leave." It's next to impossible to touch them. I've tried.

EDIT: I tried to hold them responsible for the slave trade in the Sudan and Mauritania while the UN watched and did nothing. Only the State Department did anything.

 

[SViscusi]

If Kofi Annan could be prosecuted for negligence, doesn't that also mean Security Council members who choose not to allow the U.N. to intervene could also be prosecuted?

 

[sandorski]

No. When the UN doesn't act, it is because one of the members on the SC refuses to act. The UN is not an Independent organization capable of acting on its' own.

 

[User1001]

Accept when nations are dumb /* cough Russia */ and boycott, thus allowing a unanimous vote.

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: sandorski
No. When the UN doesn't act, it is because one of the members on the SC refuses to act. The UN is not an Independent organization capable of acting on its' own.

thats probably true with iraq. but even with iraq there is the question of leadership. an ineffective policy is an ineffective policy and if continued to be
pressed by the secretary general then we have a question of particular accountability. i can grant with the iraq case the culpabiity is not a legal one
because of the security council role.

but your point does not apply in the case of rwanda. cambodia is borderline. the srebenica debacle was brokered by the u.n. and no reservations
were voiced by u.n. leaders when their own people caught in the midst of the violence were telling them conditions were otherwise.

as for rwanda, it was a direct cable to kofi annan. period. kofi's lonely decision. no consultation at that specific point in time, when dallaire knew
infinitely better and was pleading to stay.

 

[KenGr]

Not sure where the concept of the UN as an independent force came from. The UN has no citizens, no toops, no independent source of funds. Any and all actions the "UN" can take would be entirely subject to the whims of the constituent members.

The UN is effectively toothless and insignificant until the stronger countries decide to back UN initiatives.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: sandorski
No. When the UN doesn't act, it is because one of the members on the SC refuses to act. The UN is not an Independent organization capable of acting on its' own.

thats probably true with iraq. but even with iraq there is the question of leadership. an ineffective policy is an ineffective policy and if continued to be
pressed by the secretary general then we have a question of particular accountability. i can grant with the iraq case the culpabiity is not a legal one
because of the security council role.

but your point does not apply in the case of rwanda. cambodia is borderline. the srebenica debacle was brokered by the u.n. and no reservations
were voiced by u.n. leaders when their own people caught in the midst of the violence were telling them conditions were otherwise.

as for rwanda, it was a direct cable to kofi annan. period. kofi's lonely decision. no consultation at that specific point in time, when dallaire knew
infinitely better and was pleading to stay.

Rwanda was a lack of International support, the US was a prime reason the call for more troops from Dallaire was rejected. I'm not sure of Srebenica, but it too was likely a troop definciency situation.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: sandorski
No. When the UN doesn't act, it is because one of the members on the SC refuses to act. The UN is not an Independent organization capable of acting on its' own.

thats probably true with iraq. but even with iraq there is the question of leadership. an ineffective policy is an ineffective policy and if continued to be
pressed by the secretary general then we have a question of particular accountability. i can grant with the iraq case the culpabiity is not a legal one
because of the security council role.

but your point does not apply in the case of rwanda. cambodia is borderline. the srebenica debacle was brokered by the u.n. and no reservations
were voiced by u.n. leaders when their own people caught in the midst of the violence were telling them conditions were otherwise.

as for rwanda, it was a direct cable to kofi annan. period. kofi's lonely decision. no consultation at that specific point in time, when dallaire knew
infinitely better and was pleading to stay.

Rwanda was a lack of International support, the US was a prime reason the call for more troops from Dallaire was rejected. I'm not sure of Srebenica, but it too was likely a troop definciency situation.

If Kofi Annan is going to go down for Rawanda, then Madeline Albright and President Clinton would have to go down as it was the US that led the effort to keep UN peacekeepers out of Rawanda after the debacle in Somalia.

Srebenicia was a matter of insufficient force and insufficient willpower.

You would have to hold the entire international community responsible for any of the events you listed. UN officials in reality have almost no power of thier own particularly in regards to military matters.

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: sandorski
No. When the UN doesn't act, it is because one of the members on the SC refuses to act. The UN is not an Independent organization capable of acting on its' own.

thats probably true with iraq. but even with iraq there is the question of leadership. an ineffective policy is an ineffective policy and if continued to be
pressed by the secretary general then we have a question of particular accountability. i can grant with the iraq case the culpabiity is not a legal one
because of the security council role.

but your point does not apply in the case of rwanda. cambodia is borderline. the srebenica debacle was brokered by the u.n. and no reservations
were voiced by u.n. leaders when their own people caught in the midst of the violence were telling them conditions were otherwise.

as for rwanda, it was a direct cable to kofi annan. period. kofi's lonely decision. no consultation at that specific point in time, when dallaire knew
infinitely better and was pleading to stay.

Rwanda was a lack of International support, the US was a prime reason the call for more troops from Dallaire was rejected. I'm not sure of Srebenica, but it too was likely a troop definciency situation.

while there is much blame to share, this is not a sniping opportunity for a chomsky-drone. i'm concerned with the initial moments
when general dallaire felt there was still time to prevent the degenerative shift into genocide. the links below detail the sordid
history:

associated press story:
A copy of a fax from U.N. Headquarters, obtained by the New Yorker, showed that order not to intervene was from Annan

timeline: annan and boutros-boutros gali - lies, cover-up, complicity

annan's office said no to dallaire

<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/Rwanda/Rwanda2.htm">The U.N. peace-keeping office in New York, fearing "serious political repercussions" of any such firm action, told Dallaire that his
mandate did not permit him to confiscate the arms; he had the authority to enforce the existence of a weapons-free area, but not
to create a weapons-free area.</a>

<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ushmm.org/conscience/events/dallaire/dallaire.php">here is general romaine dallaire himself: "The UN fundamentally said you will not conduct any offensive operations . . . the response
was immediate, within hours, that I was not authorized, it was outside my mandate, and I was jeopardizing the whole mission . . . the
communications were with what I call the triumvirate in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, which was Kofi Annan, Iqbal Riza,
and a Canadian general who was a good friend of mine, General Maurice Baril </a>

according to annan, dallaire's request amounted to 'jeopardizing the whole mission'. for him to say that is sheer depravity.

 

[sandorski]

Of course the denial would come from Annan, he's the head honcho. The reason for it though was the result of behind the scenes happenings. As pointed out by others, the UN can't send any troops anywhere, it has no standing army to send.

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Of course the denial would come from Annan, he's the head honcho. The reason for it though was the result of behind the scenes happenings. As pointed out by others, the UN can't send any troops anywhere, it has no standing army to send.

the u.n. already had troops on the ground in rwanda. general dallaire wasn't leading a troop of gorily dressed transvestites.

and what are these 'behind the scenes happenings' ? he received the 'no' back from annan's office within a matter of hours.
dallaire had asked permission to confiscate arms caches, about 10 altogether, that he had discovered, including one in the
presidential palace. the arms caches included thousands of machetes. dallaire believed he had sufficient personnel to accomplish
this objective.

the greatest question asked by the rwanda survivors is why did the u.n. did not help when there were forces already on the ground ?
annan, riza, and gali obeyed all the rules. they were the perfect diplomats, observing the rules of engagement, the laws of their
mandate, to a tee. such professional, rule-conscious people, how could they be guilty ? it is this disgusting bureacratic thinking that
i think can form a prosecutable offense . . . if only.

ofcourse, dallaire disobeyed, but not initially. he listened to that first 'no'. european personnel were hauled out, leaving behind
their rwandan friends to be massacred. safe zones within kigali were eventually established. some rebel tutsi forces did eventually
make their way down from the hills surrounding kigali. for kofi to regard this as a 'civil war' when his own people were telling
him differently amounts to murderous negligence.

 

[sandorski]

Dallaire asked for more troops, he had insufficient troops to prevent the Rwandan massacre. It was the UN nations refusal to supply sufficient troops that lead Annan to deny Dallaire. You are trying to blame people who are at the mercy of others.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: sandorski
No. When the UN doesn't act, it is because one of the members on the SC refuses to act. The UN is not an Independent organization capable of acting on its' own.

thats probably true with iraq. but even with iraq there is the question of leadership. an ineffective policy is an ineffective policy and if continued to be
pressed by the secretary general then we have a question of particular accountability. i can grant with the iraq case the culpabiity is not a legal one
because of the security council role.

but your point does not apply in the case of rwanda. cambodia is borderline. the srebenica debacle was brokered by the u.n. and no reservations
were voiced by u.n. leaders when their own people caught in the midst of the violence were telling them conditions were otherwise.

as for rwanda, it was a direct cable to kofi annan. period. kofi's lonely decision. no consultation at that specific point in time, when dallaire knew
infinitely better and was pleading to stay.

Rwanda was a lack of International support, the US was a prime reason the call for more troops from Dallaire was rejected. I'm not sure of Srebenica, but it too was likely a troop definciency situation.

while there is much blame to share, this is not a sniping opportunity for a chomsky-drone. i'm concerned with the initial moments
when general dallaire felt there was still time to prevent the degenerative shift into genocide. the links below detail the sordid
history:

associated press story:
A copy of a fax from U.N. Headquarters, obtained by the New Yorker, showed that order not to intervene was from Annan

timeline: annan and boutros-boutros gali - lies, cover-up, complicity

annan's office said no to dallaire

<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/Rwanda/Rwanda2.htm">The U.N. peace-keeping office in New York, fearing "serious political repercussions" of any such firm action, told Dallaire that his
mandate did not permit him to confiscate the arms; he had the authority to enforce the existence of a weapons-free area, but not
to create a weapons-free area.</a>

<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ushmm.org/conscience/events/dallaire/dallaire.php">here is general romaine dallaire himself: "The UN fundamentally said you will not conduct any offensive operations . . . the response
was immediate, within hours, that I was not authorized, it was outside my mandate, and I was jeopardizing the whole mission . . . the
communications were with what I call the triumvirate in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, which was Kofi Annan, Iqbal Riza,
and a Canadian general who was a good friend of mine, General Maurice Baril </a>

according to annan, dallaire's request amounted to 'jeopardizing the whole mission'. for him to say that is sheer depravity.

So Kofi Annan has this secret Army somewhere that he can send all across the world willy nilly without the approval of the security council?

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: syzygy
particularly kofi annan for decisions made that resulted in the deaths of many civilians, even genocide.

cases:

1- cambodia - kowtowing to hun sen, a former khmer rouge genocidaire, now cambodian premier.
2- rwanda - ignoring dallaire. his forces move out. genocide ensues.
3- srebenica - u.n. 'safe haven'. u.n. is an avowed neutral party when the serbs are the clear aggressors. 5000 dead, countless other war crimes.
4- iraq - toothless resolution strategy that never effectively addressed saddam's grip on power, sustaining and prolonging civilian suffering.

u.n. officials never fired a shot against these people. indeed, the u.n. was ostensively working to help them. yet their decisions were so neglectful
of the facts on the ground and were on occasion in total disregard of assessments made by their own personnel in the region that they resulted
in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

there are also cases where the u.n. continues to intervene as a neutral party despite having to work with dictators who manipulate diplomatic
niceties to enhance their control over a region and a people. yet u.n. policies and engagement strategies, still, do not change.

the u.n. is placed in such critical positions where they are usually the last line of defense against certain destruction. information and intelligence,
at least in the cases above, were not lacking. the u.n.'s own people warned their leadership of impending doom but were ignored. dallaire pleaded.
srebenica's observers pleaded. hun sen ran wild over the opposition before the eyes of u.n. observers. saddam used resolutions as toilet paper.

something more - much more - could have been done in the estimation of the u.n.'s own foot soldiers, caught as they were on the ground, in
the middle of these man-made disasters.

i think this constitues not only failed policies but, given their continued implementation in the face of accumulating death, some sort of crime as
well.

what do you think ?

Wait a minute...did you call me a Chomsky drone?

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Dallaire asked for more troops, he had insufficient troops to prevent the Rwandan massacre.
It was the UN nations refusal to supply sufficient troops that lead Annan to deny Dallaire. You are trying to blame people who are at the mercy
of others.

first it was 'behind the scenes happenings'. now 'insufficient troops'.

i know other nations are culpable. i conceded that. dallaire himslf has greater hatred for member states like the u.s. than he
does for his u.n. superiors. i am concerned with those very early moments when the tide of blood could have been stemmed
with quick forceful action as dallaire believed.

dallaire never expressed any concern about the number of troops under his command when he sent the fax. he did think more
troops would be required later, assuming his humanitarian objectives could be broadened. when dallaire sent the fax, he
was seeking approval to hit various weapon caches secreted throughout kigali. for this pinpoint mission, he had sufficient troops
and he had an informant who would have lead him and his forces to all the caches.

anyway, you are bringing up a point that the u.n. itself did not address in their response back to him. all of your issues are
answered in the links i provided. most important of them being dallaire's interview with koppel, from which i quoted above.

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
So Kofi Annan has this secret Army somewhere that he can send all across the world willy nilly without the approval of the security council?

wth are you babbling about ??? u.n. forces were already on the ground. dallaire was simply seeking approval to strike at weapons caches
horded by the hutu plotters in habyarimana's gov't. dallaire had adequate troop numbers, an informant who would have lead him to the
caches (10 in all), and the will to execute the mission. what he did not have - and never received - was bureacratic approval.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: sandorski
Dallaire asked for more troops, he had insufficient troops to prevent the Rwandan massacre.
It was the UN nations refusal to supply sufficient troops that lead Annan to deny Dallaire. You are trying to blame people who are at the mercy
of others.

first it was 'behind the scenes happenings'. now 'insufficient troops'.

i know other nations are culpable. i conceded that. dallaire himslf has greater hatred for member states like the u.s. than he
does for his u.n. superiors. i am concerned with those very early moments when the tide of blood could have been stemmed
with quick forceful action as dallaire believed.

dallaire never expressed any concern about the number of troops under his command when he sent the fax. he did think more
troops would be required later, assuming his humanitarian objectives could be broadened. when dallaire sent the fax, he
was seeking approval to hit various weapon caches secreted throughout kigali. for this pinpoint mission, he had sufficient troops
and he had an informant who would have lead him and his forces to all the caches.

anyway, you are bringing up a point that the u.n. itself did not address in their response back to him. all of your issues are
answered in the links i provided. most important of them being dallaire's interview with koppel, from which i quoted above.

"insufficient troops"= Dallaire needed more
"behind the scenes happenings"=Memeber nations refusing to supply troops then or in the future. IOW, they wanted nothing to do with Rwanda, ever.

Yes, both things happened.

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: sandorski
Dallaire asked for more troops, he had insufficient troops to prevent the Rwandan massacre.
It was the UN nations refusal to supply sufficient troops that lead Annan to deny Dallaire. You are trying to blame people who are at the mercy
of others.

first it was 'behind the scenes happenings'. now 'insufficient troops'.

i know other nations are culpable. i conceded that. dallaire himslf has greater hatred for member states like the u.s. than he
does for his u.n. superiors. i am concerned with those very early moments when the tide of blood could have been stemmed
with quick forceful action as dallaire believed.

dallaire never expressed any concern about the number of troops under his command when he sent the fax. he did think more
troops would be required later, assuming his humanitarian objectives could be broadened. when dallaire sent the fax, he
was seeking approval to hit various weapon caches secreted throughout kigali. for this pinpoint mission, he had sufficient troops
and he had an informant who would have lead him and his forces to all the caches.

anyway, you are bringing up a point that the u.n. itself did not address in their response back to him. all of your issues are
answered in the links i provided. most important of them being dallaire's interview with koppel, from which i quoted above.

"insufficient troops"= Dallaire needed more
"behind the scenes happenings"=Memeber nations refusing to supply troops then or in the future. IOW, they wanted nothing to do with Rwanda, ever.

Yes, both things happened.

dallaire never said he needed more troops to conduct his initial mission, so who knows where you're pulling that from. fantasies ?
you don't care to read the timeline, dallaire's own words, you don't touch the links. you don't bother referencing them. i suppose
you have your delusions to protect.

there is a documentary called 'the last just man' where dallaire is featured and repeats for film everything he says in the links.
the infamous fax is probed in-depth. riza is even featured in a very embarrassing display of bureacratic squirm. it makes for
telling viewing . .. . not that you will ever watch it.

 

[rchiu]

If you guys are saying Kofi Annan should be prosecuted for NOT ACTING in some cases, what about someone who directly ordered an invasion of a country and killing 6000+ civilian and unknow number of military personnel, all based some false intelligence or flat out false claims?