• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

UN under Annan embraces sexual abuse

As if we need yet another reason to illustrate the ongoing stupidity that is the UN and Kofi Annan, another is surfacing.

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3797550

UN Sex Abuse Scandal Gathers Momentum

"PA"

Linked in the past to sex crimes in East Timor, and prostitution in Cambodia and Kosovo, UN peacekeepers have now been accused of sexually abusing the very population they were deployed to protect in Congo.

And while the 150 allegations of rape, pedophelia and solicitation in Congo may be the UN? worst sex scandal in years, chronic problems almost guarantee that few of the suspects will face serious punishment.

The problem is simple: The UN often implores nations to discipline their peacekeepers, but it has little power to enforce the rules.

And when nations are reluctant anyway to contribute soldiers for dangerous missions like Congo, it?s tough to turn the tables and shame them publicly.

?The UN goes around trying to cajole countries to provide peacekeepers,? said Edward Luck, a professor at Columbia University?s School of International and Public Affairs.

?They?re having a hard time getting any member states to respond, and that doesn?t give the UN a great deal of leverage in these kinds of situations.

While thousands of UN peacekeepers have served without incident, some have been accused of smuggling weapons and exotic animals, selling fuel on the black market, vandalising aeroplanes, and standing by while mobs looted storefronts ? if they didn?t join in the chaos themselves.

Other times their inaction led to even more grievous crimes, as when Dutch peacekeepers under a UN mandate didn?t stop Bosnian troops in the enclave of Srebrenica from loading Muslim men onto buses and taking them away to be killed.

That failure led the entire Dutch government to resign. It brought expressions of remorse at the UN, but no firings.

In the case of Congo, the accusations seem as bad as anything the UN has ever seen. Women and children have reportedly been raped, and there is said to be video and photographic evidence of crimes.

Similar allegations have been directed at UN peacekeepers and officials in East Timor. And, in Cambodia and Kosovo, local officials and human rights group charge that the presence of UN forces has been linked to an increase in trafficking of women and a sharp rise in prostitution.

In a new embarrassment, the UN confirmed yesterday that a UN auditor in the Congolese capital, Kinshasa, had been accused of hiring a prostitute. He comes from the agency that is investigating the latest claims, but isn?t taking part in the probe.

The Web site for the Congo mission, known by its French acronym MONUC, reveals how bad the problem is but how little can be done. It includes a November 11 report that details the ?sensitisation training? given to 143 South African peacekeepers when they arrived in the city of Goma.

?A Power-Point presentation explains ? or reminds ? that the UN considers that any person who is less than 18 years old is a CHILD,? the report said, adding that sex with a minor is child abuse.

?No matter whether the child seems to agree to the sexual relation or if the age of the child is not clear enough at the moment of the sexual encounter.?

The Congo allegations come at a particularly bad time for the UN and its Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

UN officials have been accused of allowing corruption under Iraq?s oil-for-food program. The refugee chief was accused of sexual harassment and cleared by Annan, which angered UN staff. The UN?s top investigator allegedly recruited and promoted staff based on their ethnicity, but was also cleared by Annan.

?The last 18 months have been one of the worst years and a half for the UN of any similar period that I can remember,? said Jonathan Tepperman, senior editor at Foreign Affairs magazine. ?This is the last thing that Kofi needed.?

In the face of another potential public relations disaster, UN officials have come out early and loud with a denunciation of the severe problems in Congo. They have announced a spate of new investigations and reportedly made the complaint process easier in countries where peacekeepers are posted.

So-called ?personnel conduct officers? have been sent to the missions in Congo, Burundi, Ivory Coast and Haiti.

Jane Holl Lute, Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, warned that the UN may even ?generate new policies? to crack down on sex abuse, though she said it?s too early to say what those policies would be.

The UN has also named Jordan?s Prince Zeid Al Hussein a special adviser on sexual exploitation with the hope that he can talk to governments and make sure they pursue claims against their soldiers.

Officials hope Zeid?s background will give him the power he needs in an extremely difficult task. He is one of the few UN ambassadors with peacekeeping experience, from Bosnia in 1994 and 1995. In addition, Jordan is a major top troop suppliers.

Lute said it?s possible sex abuses had got worse because there are far more peacekeeping missions than there once were. But right now, it must focus on prevention, with its ability to punish so limited.

?It?s obvious the measures that we have had in place have not been adequate to deal with the changing circumstances,? Lute said.
I'm sure all those absolutely infuriated by the abuses at Abu Ghraib will be jumping all over this too.

Well? Won't they?
 
Did Annan saction these abuses like the Bush White House sanctions abuses in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo etc.?
 
Originally posted by: GrGr
Did Annan saction these abuses like the Bush White House sanctions abuses in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo etc.?
By not doing anything about and never disciplining the troops under his control for similar previous abuses, he did. His lack of action has fostered this atmosphere. At least Bush and Co. are bringing those responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib to trial, which is a damn sight better than can be said of Annan.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: GrGr
Did Annan saction these abuses like the Bush White House sanctions abuses in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo etc.?
By not doing anything about and never disciplining the troops under his control for similar previous abuses, he did. His lack of action has fostered this atmosphere. At least Bush and Co. are bringing those responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib to trial, which is a damn sight better than can be said of Annan.


What about those responsible for Guantanamo?
 
Do you want to send US peacekeepers into Congo instead?
At least Bush and Co. are bringing those responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib to trial, which is a damn sight better than can be said of Annan.
Do you want to give UN the power to bring soldiers of member countries' militaries to trial?

 
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: GrGr
Did Annan saction these abuses like the Bush White House sanctions abuses in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo etc.?
By not doing anything about and never disciplining the troops under his control for similar previous abuses, he did. His lack of action has fostered this atmosphere. At least Bush and Co. are bringing those responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib to trial, which is a damn sight better than can be said of Annan.


What about those responsible for Guantanamo?
What about the UN and Annan and his piece-of-a55-keepers which are the subject of this thread?
 
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Do you want to send US peacekeepers into Congo instead?
At least Bush and Co. are bringing those responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib to trial, which is a damn sight better than can be said of Annan.
Do you want to give UN the power to bring soldiers of member countries' militaries to trial?

The UN certainly does.
 
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Do you want to send US peacekeepers into Congo instead?
No, I'd like the UN to do a better, more forceful job or just leave.

At least Bush and Co. are bringing those responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib to trial, which is a damn sight better than can be said of Annan.
Do you want to give UN the power to bring soldiers of member countries' militaries to trial?
[/quote]
No need. The UN needs to force the countries that those soldiers originate from to bring them to trial and punish them if found guilty.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: GrGr
Did Annan saction these abuses like the Bush White House sanctions abuses in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo etc.?
By not doing anything about and never disciplining the troops under his control for similar previous abuses, he did. His lack of action has fostered this atmosphere. At least Bush and Co. are bringing those responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib to trial, which is a damn sight better than can be said of Annan.


What about those responsible for Guantanamo?
What about the UN and Annan and his piece-of-a55-keepers which are the subject of this thread?

LOL, you made Bush part of this thread already by your reference to Abu Ghraib. Abu Ghraib is Bush's baby.

Tell you what. I'm perfectly at easy with the thought of both Bush and Annan taking responsibility for their actions. Are you? Let Bush and Annan stand trial before the ICC. Fair enough? Oh I forgot. The US does not recognize courts it cannot control.

 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: GrGr
Did Annan saction these abuses like the Bush White House sanctions abuses in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo etc.?
By not doing anything about and never disciplining the troops under his control for similar previous abuses, he did. His lack of action has fostered this atmosphere. At least Bush and Co. are bringing those responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib to trial, which is a damn sight better than can be said of Annan.

You know that our new Attorney General IS RESPONSIBLE for the abuses at Abu Ghraib.. will he be brought to justice?
 
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: GrGr
Did Annan saction these abuses like the Bush White House sanctions abuses in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo etc.?
By not doing anything about and never disciplining the troops under his control for similar previous abuses, he did. His lack of action has fostered this atmosphere. At least Bush and Co. are bringing those responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib to trial, which is a damn sight better than can be said of Annan.


What about those responsible for Guantanamo?
What about the UN and Annan and his piece-of-a55-keepers which are the subject of this thread?

LOL, you made Bush part of this thread already by your reference to Abu Ghraib. Abu Ghraib is Bush's baby.
My reference was to those infuriated by the occurences at Abu Ghraib. Since torture and/or sexual abuse seems to get them all unhinged, I figured they'd be in here condemning Annan left and right, requesting his resignation, claiming he should be tried under international law, etc. So far they seem a bit sparse in their presence or simply want to redirect the subject so they can point their waggling finger at Bush and co..

Tell you what. I'm perfectly at easy with the thought of both Bush and Annan taking responsibility for their actions. Are you? Let Bush and Annan stand trial before the ICC. Fair enough? Oh I forgot. The US does not recognize courts it cannot control.
I'd agree if Kerry were in there too along with Chirac and Clinton and many others. If we're going to indict people for war crimes then let's nab the entire bunch, even those indirectly responsible.

 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Do you want to send US peacekeepers into Congo instead?
No, I'd like the UN to do a better, more forceful job or just leave.

At least Bush and Co. are bringing those responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib to trial, which is a damn sight better than can be said of Annan.
Do you want to give UN the power to bring soldiers of member countries' militaries to trial?
No need. The UN needs to force the countries that those soldiers originate from to bring them to trial and punish them if found guilty.[/quote]

Do you want to send US troops into Congo under UN umbrella to make sure UN does a better, more forceful job?
Do you want to give the UN the power to force member countries to bring their soldiers to trial?
Or do you want to b!tch and moan about the UN all day, not realizing that the UN only has troops that are provided by member countries, and only has powers given to it by member countries?
 
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Do you want to send US peacekeepers into Congo instead?
No, I'd like the UN to do a better, more forceful job or just leave.

At least Bush and Co. are bringing those responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib to trial, which is a damn sight better than can be said of Annan.
Do you want to give UN the power to bring soldiers of member countries' militaries to trial?
No need. The UN needs to force the countries that those soldiers originate from to bring them to trial and punish them if found guilty.

Do you want to send US troops into Congo under UN umbrella to make sure UN does a better, more forceful job?[/quote]
Is that what would be required to have the UN do its job better?

Do you want to give the UN the power to force member countries to bring their soldiers to trial?
When those troops are operating under the UN banner, yes.

Or do you want to b!tch and moan about the UN all day, not realizing that the UN only has troops that are provided by member countries, and only has powers given to it by member countries?
Why shouldn't I be able to bitch and moan all day abiout the UN? It's a break from those bitching and moaning incessantly about Bush, often rehashing the same issues over and over endlessly. At least it's a change of subject from most of the threads posted in here.
 
Or do you want to b!tch and moan about the UN all day, not realizing that the UN only has troops that are provided by member countries, and only has powers given to it by member countries?

I think we will take the liberal route on this one and bitch and moan.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Do you want to send US peacekeepers into Congo instead?
No, I'd like the UN to do a better, more forceful job or just leave.

At least Bush and Co. are bringing those responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib to trial, which is a damn sight better than can be said of Annan.
Do you want to give UN the power to bring soldiers of member countries' militaries to trial?
No need. The UN needs to force the countries that those soldiers originate from to bring them to trial and punish them if found guilty.

Do you want to send US troops into Congo under UN umbrella to make sure UN does a better, more forceful job?
Is that what would be required to have the UN do its job better?

Do you want to give the UN the power to force member countries to bring their soldiers to trial?
When those troops are operating under the UN banner, yes.

Or do you want to b!tch and moan about the UN all day, not realizing that the UN only has troops that are provided by member countries, and only has powers given to it by member countries?
Why shouldn't I be able to bitch and moan all day abiout the UN? It's a break from those bitching and moaning incessantly about Bush, often rehashing the same issues over and over endlessly. At least it's a change of subject from most of the threads posted in here.[/quote]

The better troops are contributed to UN missions, the better the UN can do their job. So if you want to send US troops on UN mission to Congo, and then give the UN power to decide which US troops should be prosecuted for misbehavior, then you should say so.
 
The better troops are contributed to UN missions, the better the UN can do their job. So if you want to send US troops on UN mission to Congo, and then give the UN power to decide which US troops should be prosecuted for misbehavior, then you should say so.

What makes you think the US doesnt send troops on UN missions?
 
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: GrGr
Did Annan saction these abuses like the Bush White House sanctions abuses in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo etc.?
By not doing anything about and never disciplining the troops under his control for similar previous abuses, he did. His lack of action has fostered this atmosphere. At least Bush and Co. are bringing those responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib to trial, which is a damn sight better than can be said of Annan.

You know that our new Attorney General IS RESPONSIBLE for the abuses at Abu Ghraib.. will he be brought to justice?

 
Actions such as this are not that rare in UN peacekeeping actions. Sexual violence and torture are not new to UN peacekeeping missions. Child prostitution is actually pretty evident in many of the UN peacekeeping missions as well; I believe that the UN has even admitted this.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
The better troops are contributed to UN missions, the better the UN can do their job. So if you want to send US troops on UN mission to Congo, and then give the UN power to decide which US troops should be prosecuted for misbehavior, then you should say so.

What makes you think the US doesnt send troops on UN missions?

because if the ICC
 
TLC: "I'd agree if Kerry were in there too along with Chirac and Clinton and many others. If we're going to indict people for war crimes then let's nab the entire bunch, even those indirectly responsible."

Why the conditionality? Isn't that a given. If they break the law they, like everybody else, should accept the consequence. Perhaps it is even more important to keep the high an mighty on the carpet so they cannot misuse their vast powers.
 
Back
Top