View Full Version : Another U.N. story not getting any media or forum play....
Has anybody noticed this?
Is it worth your thoughts or comments?
Does this reflect on Kofi Annan at all?
Or would you prefer not to discuss it?
The U.N.'s rape of the innocents
Michelle Malkin
February 16, 2005
Kofi Annan must have the world's thickest set of industrial-quality earplugs.
How else can he block out the cries of Congolese girls raped by United Nations "peacekeepers" sent to protect the innocents from harm?
Fifty U.N. peacekeepers and U.N. civilian officers face an estimated 150 allegations of sexual exploitation and rape in the Congo alone. Last Friday, ABC's "20/20" program aired a devastating expose by investigative reporter Brian Ross highlighting some of the worst alleged crimes.
The accused include Didier Bourguet, a U.N. senior official from France charged with running an Internet pedophile ring in the Congo. According to ABC News and others, pictures taken from his personal computer contained thousands of photos of him with hundreds of girls. Police say Bourguet had turned his bedroom, plastered with mirrors and rigged with remote-control cameras, into a stealth porn studio. He was caught in a sting operation while allegedly preparing to rape a 12-year-old girl.
In one of the photos confiscated from Bourguet, a tear can be seen rolling down the cheek of a victim.
Hundreds of babies, fathered by U.N. personnel, have been born to Congolese girls and women -- including the 15-year-old deaf mute daughter of Aimee Tsesi, who told Ross she was turned away at the gates of the U.N. camp when she went for assistance. "The U.N. is not able to give me food or money for my grandson," she told ABC News. "But if the U.N. hadn't brought this soldier here, my daughter would not have become pregnant. And I would not be going through this suffering."
Annan's spinners would have us believe that the problem of U.N. sex predators is confined to a tiny band of rogues and locals beyond the control of headquarters. But according to Bourguet's lawyer, there was an entire network of U.N. personnel who had sex with underage girls in Congo and the Central African Republic. Investigators are now digging into claims of U.N. infiltration by organized pedophiles.
The Times of London reports further that two Russian pilots who served in the U.N.'s peacekeeping contingent based in Mbandaka "paid young girls with jars of mayonnaise and jam to have sex with them. They filmed the sessions and sent the tapes to Russia. But the men were tipped off and left the area before U.N. investigators arrived." The paper also reports that at least two other U.N. officials -- a Ukrainian and a Canadian -- left the Congo after getting local women pregnant.
In July 2002, Congolese military official Jean Pierre Ondekane said that all the U.N. mission in Congo would be remembered for in the village of Kisangani was "for running after little girls." Annan's special adviser from Jordan, Prince Zeid Raad Al Hussein, concluded last year that the "situation appears to be one of 'zero-compliance with zero-tolerance' throughout the mission."
Human rights groups say such monstrosities have been tolerated by U.N. brass for years. Joseph Loconte noted in the Weekly Standard last month that the Congo revelations come three years after another U.N. report found "widespread" evidence of sexual abuse of West African refugees. Girls and women in East Timor, Cambodia and Kosovo have reported sex crimes perpetrated by U.N. peacekeepers.
In 2001, American whistleblower Kathryn Bolkovac, a Nebraska policewoman who worked for U.N. security in Bosnia, uncovered scores of sex crime allegations and prostitution rings in the Balkans involving her fellow U.N. employees. Girls were forced to dance in bars for U.N. personnel and beaten or raped, Bolkovac reported. After being fired from her job for "time sheet irregularities," she told a British tribunal that Mike Stiers, the international police task force's deputy commissioner, flippantly dismissed victims of human trafficking as "just prostitutes."
This mother of all humanitarian abuse scandals at the U.N. is only just beginning to pierce the world's conscience. Annan has trotted out a refurbished zero-tolerance policy and is trumpeting a few arrests in Morocco. But such faint-hearted damage control measures are not enough.
It's time to rethink the nearly half-billion dollars in aid we send to U.N. peacekeeping operations. How much more aid must we squander on holier-than-thou wolves in do-gooders' clothing? For the sake of the innocents raped and pillaged in the name of humanitarianism, let's get stingy.
TheDave
02-28-2005, 09:26 PM
something should be done about these individuals :dry:
hung, drawn and quartered perhaps?
I fail to see how it reflects on Kofi Annan.
It does reflect rather badly on the ability of Michelle Malkin to write coherently. Just about every article of her's that I've found is rabidly anti-U.N., could it be because the U.N. is trying to get Israel to adhere to the hundreds of resolutions passed against them.
Look at this bit:
Annan's spinners would have us believe that the problem of U.N. sex predators is confined to a tiny band of rogues and locals beyond the control of headquarters. But according to Bourguet's lawyer, there was an entire network of U.N. personnel who had sex with underage girls in Congo and the Central African Republic. It probably is confined to a "tiny band of rogues and locals", but it is the lawyer's job to try to smear the blame as far and wide as possible in order to mitigate his client's responsibility.
Investigators are now digging into claims of U.N. infiltration by organized pedophiles. How convenient that she doesn't actually point out that they are U.N. investigators.
The Times of London reports further that two Russian pilots who served in the U.N.'s peacekeeping contingent based in Mbandaka "paid young girls with jars of mayonnaise and jam to have sex with them. They filmed the sessions and sent the tapes to Russia. But the men were tipped off and left the area before U.N. investigators arrived." So in fact, now she does acknowledge that the U.N. were investigating, but says the men were tipped off - any actual proof of this?
The paper also reports that at least two other U.N. officials -- a Ukrainian and a Canadian -- left the Congo after getting local women pregnant. Not unusual with any armed force from any country, but it doesn't fit her agenda to say so.
I could go on and tear this disreputable rant to shreds, but what is the point. After all you weren't interested in the actual content any more than she was, you were simply looking for another attack on Kofi Annan who, unlike this somewhat biased reporter, has to act on evidence not hearsay. Shame on you.
Biggles
03-01-2005, 07:31 PM
The majority of these crimes have been commited by soldiers of donor nations involved in peace keeping duties. Where UN staffers have commited crimes then the UN should pursue them. Where it was soldiers it should be the donor countries.
I am sure the good lady would not argue that the US should stop funding its military just because some individuals have besmirched the uniform.
The issue is real and the UN should deal severely with those of its people involved in crimes (which it appears to be doing) and if possible pursue donor countries to do likewise with soldiers who have brought shame on their units.
The agenda of the journalist, however, is not real and is consequently why the story has not had the slant she would so dearly like.
The story was covered at length in my paper a couple of weeks ago (sans UN bashing).
Rat Faced
03-01-2005, 07:45 PM
Its the same wherever troops are sent.
I wonder how many Brits born during the '40s have American fathers, or Germans in all the years afterwards that have Brit, US or Russian fathers?
There are many reasons that people join the military, unfortunatly one of them (thankfully quite minor) is that some people enjoy inflicting pain and suffering and the military gives plenty of opportunity for doing this.
British Troops have raped girls in Germany and Cyprus etc. and some of the stuff they get upto in Belize is..
Americans have Raped British Girls and German Girls.
Troops, unfortunatly, will be troops.. and drunken troops the world over will get into trouble.
Thankfully some, like British and American do so a lot less than others.. But they do do it.
As to the UN personnel.
I agree they should also be hunted down.
However, how many of our own Politicians get upto crap like this when they can get away with it?
We all know that some of them do.. what makes it so special that its UN?
Its right to point out this stuff.
Its wrong to spin it to say that its "The UN" system, and not something thats widespread in every country and culture.
Some of those "Peacekeepers" were no doubt American, British, French etc... so why pick on just a couple of them?
...it doesn't fit her agenda to say so.
I could go on and tear this disreputable rant to shreds, but what is the point. After all you weren't interested in the actual content any more than she was, you were simply looking for another attack on Kofi Annan who, unlike this somewhat biased reporter, has to act on evidence not hearsay. Shame on you.
Such would not fit my agenda either, Lynx; anyone who, at this time, would sit still for having a lot of hot air about the U.N. blown up his/her skirt is being foolish.
The U.N. needs a high colonic, and the higher, the better.
To defend Kofi Annan is to put lipstick on a pig.
Tearing the "rant" to shreds will change neither the events which occurred under U.N. auspices nor the need to conduct a U.N. make-over.
I remember many on this board complaining that the U.S. should adhere to a higher standard, due to it's rhetoric about it's altruistic intentions; I think perhaps, given the U.N.'s charter, it's standards ought to be even higher, don't you think?
Rat Faced
03-01-2005, 09:25 PM
*sigh*
Then lets have a Democratic UN...
Except i know at least 5 countries that would object to that :ermm:
Biggles
03-01-2005, 09:34 PM
I would agree fully that the UN standards should be high and I am sure many in the UN will be distraught by these crimes.
There is however a dishonesty about the article that is disappointing. The way it is constructed it sounds as if the rich and corrupt bodies of Western colonialism are raping their way through Africa.
The peacekeepers provided to assist the Congo were, for the most part, from other African countries. Whilst many of these units are professional and well trained it is debateable if they all are. Moreover, the UN can only work with the forces supplied to it by donor nations. Unless J2 is suggesting that there should be a UN army above that of mere National Armies, this is unlikely to change in the near future.
The journalist makes much of these crimes. However, rather than calling for the UN to pursue the criminals she suggests the US pulls out of supporting peacekeeping. I am not sure I follow the logic. Moreover, I am not sure that those who have benefited from the protection of the majority of the good peacekeepers would follow it either. As I said above, is she arguing that Lyndee England negated the work of the coalition in Iraq? - because that is where her logic takes her.
I think Ms. Malkin is saying that the U.N. escapes any blame by reasoning as you have about the assets it can bring to bear on any situation, Biggles.
The situation she describes is that of the organized and entrenched Authority-on-the-Scene, which answers to nobody, and which also has a penchant for offending repeatedly.
These are not the actions of a "few bad apples", or "renegades", these are the systematic actions of a U.N. "cabal" operating with the impugnity born of past experience.
If the U.N. decides to intercede internationally, and then is given a pass based on the presumption it cannot field a capable and disciplined force, what good is it?
I believe she would agree with you about the damage done to American efforts by Lyndee England, but might disagree as to the relativity of your characterization.
vidcc
03-01-2005, 11:42 PM
Isn't that the idea of setting up an international criminal court ? so that such crimes can be punished.
I think Ms. Malkin is saying that the U.N. escapes any blame by reasoning as you have about the assets it can bring to bear on any situation, Biggles.
The situation she describes is that of the organized and entrenched Authority-on-the-Scene, which answers to nobody, and which also has a penchant for offending repeatedly.
These are not the actions of a "few bad apples", or "renegades", these are the systematic actions of a U.N. "cabal" operating with the impugnity born of past experience.
If the U.N. decides to intercede internationally, and then is given a pass based on the presumption it cannot field a capable and disciplined force, what good is it?
I believe she would agree with you about the damage done to American efforts by Lyndee England, but might disagree as to the relativity of your characterization.
You are quite right, J2, that is exactly what she is saying.
But as I pointed out earlier, how about a little proof? How much does she present? NONE!
Yet because of it's position the U.N. is incapable of presenting any defense against these scurrilous attacks on it's integrity.
I think you should look deeper into her "mandate", I think you will find it rather dubious to say the least. Why not present it honestly. I don't have time right now, but if you haven't done so later then I certainly will. It doesn't make for pleasant reading.
Isn't that the idea of setting up an international criminal court ? so that such crimes can be punished.
If your International Criminal Court is as much a pleasure to watch as the U.N.'s sundry field operations, it should be a resounding success.
I have no doubt it will be judged with the same lack of discrimination the U.N. has been. :dry:
You are quite right, J2, that is exactly what she is saying.
But as I pointed out earlier, how about a little proof? How much does she present? NONE!
Yet because of it's position the U.N. is incapable of presenting any defense against these scurrilous attacks on it's integrity.
I think you should look deeper into her "mandate", I think you will find it rather dubious to say the least. Why not present it honestly. I don't have time right now, but if you haven't done so later then I certainly will. It doesn't make for pleasant reading.
I look forward to your complete and utter refutation of her charges, Lynx. :)
TheDave
03-02-2005, 02:15 AM
so the united nations is just a front kept for a network of peadophiles and rapists.
...and i'm crazy for doubting a plane hit the pentagon :rolleyes:
I look forward to your complete and utter refutation of her charges, Lynx. :)I think you have that backwards. When you present charges, the idea is that you also present some credible evidence, not just hearsay and gossip. It is evidence that gets refuted, not wild accusations.
As far as I can tell, no-one has suggested that there are no rapists and pedophiles among the U.N. forces, it is probable that they are there in the same proportions as any other armed force.
Hmmm, that means that they exist in the U.S. forces too, at least the U.N. is trying to hold an investigation. Why is there no active investigation by the Pentagon? What sort of perverts, rapists, pedophiles and child murderers are running your country? You don't need to answer that, on the grounds that it may be incriminating.
I think you have that backwards. When you present charges, the idea is that you also present some credible evidence, not just hearsay and gossip. It is evidence that gets refuted, not wild accusations.
As far as I can tell, no-one has suggested that there are no rapists and pedophiles among the U.N. forces, it is probable that they are there in the same proportions as any other armed force.
Hmmm, that means that they exist in the U.S. forces too, at least the U.N. is trying to hold an investigation. Why is there no active investigation by the Pentagon? What sort of perverts, rapists, pedophiles and child murderers are running your country? You don't need to answer that, on the grounds that it may be incriminating.
Well, I haven't ever caught you trying to defend the U.S., it's foreign policy, it's military personnel, or anything else, Lynx, yet you will defend or deflect criticism of the U.N. at the drop of a hat...:huh:
Why is this? :whistling
Overt corruption doesn't bother you?
The Oil-for-Food scandal is a ruse, to be rejected for "lack of proof"?
Are you wracked with doubt about whether the Holocaust actually occurred?
Have you got any proof of global warning, BTW?
Besides which, it is not exactly a new story...
THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
U.N. 'peacekeepers' rape women, children
Widespread sex scandal threatens to become 'United Nations' Abu Ghraib'
Posted: December 24, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
With the United Nations already under fire for the Oil-for-Food mega-scandal and other corruption, sensational allegations of rampant sexual exploitation and rape of young girls and women by the U.N.'s so-called "peacekeepers" and civilian staffers in the Congo is dragging the global body's reputation to an all-time low.
In a new report referring to the widespread sex scandal as "the U.N.'s Abu Ghraib," the London Times provides some specific examples, including:
* A French U.N. logistics expert in the Congo shot pornographic videos in his home, in which he had converted his bedroom into a photo studio for videotaping his sexual abuse of young girls. When police raided his home, the man was allegedly about to rape a 12-year-old girl sent to him in a law enforcement sting operation. As the Times reported, a senior Congolese police officer confirmed the bed was surrounded by large mirrors on three sides, with a remote control camera on the fourth side.
* U.N. officials are worried that the scandal, which already has netted 150 allegations of sex crimes by U.N. staffers, will explode if the pornographic videos and photos, now on sale in Congo, becoming public
"It would be a pretty big problem for the U.N. if these pictures come out," one senior official told the Times.
* Two Russian pilots paid young girls with jars of mayonnaise and jam to have sex with them, the report adds.
* U.N. "peacekeepers" from Morocco based in Kisangani a secluded town on the Congo River are notorious for impregnating local women and girls. In March, an international group probing the scandal found 82 women and girls had been made pregnant by Moroccan U.N. staffers and 59 others by Uruguayan staffers. One U.N. soldier accused of rape was apparently hidden in the barracks for a year.
Congo's Minister of Defense Maj.-Gen. Jean Pierre Ondekane told a top U.N. official that all U.N. "peacekeepers" in Kisangani would be remember for would be "for running after little girls," the Times reported.
* And at least two U.N. officials a Ukrainian and a Canadian have been forced to leave the African nation after getting local women pregnant.
Most of the sexual abuse and exploitation, says the report, involves trading sex for money, food or jobs. However, some victims say they were raped, but later given food or money to make the incident appear to have been consensual "rape disguised as prostitution."
U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Jean-Marie Guehenno told the London paper: "The fact that these things happened is a blot on us. It's awful. What is important is to get to the bottom of it and fight it and make sure that people who do that pay for what they have done."
Despite the fact that the U.N.'s sexual code of conduct is prominently displayed on U.N. facilities Congo forbidding sex with prostitutes or women under 18 the U.N. continues to hand out free condoms to "peacekeepers" to protect them from AIDS.
The U.N. has promised to investigate and prosecute the widespread allegations. But, as WND reported last month, the global organization is not known for its forthrightness and candor in such internal investigations. The agency has been criticized for ignoring evidence or wrongdoing in the past including accusations of rape and murder by "peacekeepers."
In fact, previous revelations of peacekeeping abuses have only been revealed by news organizations. Such was the case in Cambodia in the early 1990s and later in Somalia, Bosnia and Ethiopia.
"I am afraid there is clear evidence that acts of gross misconduct have taken place," Secretary-General Kofi Annan admitted. "This is a shameful thing for the United Nations to have to say, and I am absolutely outraged by it."
Annan said the allegations concerned a small number of U.N. personnel and promised to hold those involved accountable.
"I have long made it clear that my attitude to sexual exploitation and abuse is one of zero tolerance, without exception, and I am determined to implement this policy in the most transparent manner," Annan said.
But Jordans Prince Zeid Raad Al Hussein, a special adviser to Annan and who led one investigative team, said in a confidential report obtained by The Times: "The situation appears to be one of 'zero-compliance with zero-tolerance' throughout the mission."
The new charges of rape and pedophilia by U.N. troops and workers in Congo are not the first scandal involving U.N. workers and troops in Africa.
Former United Nations Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali's tenure was marked by scandalous charges that he played a leading role in supplying weapons to the Hutu regime that carried out a campaign of genocide against the Tutsi tribe in 1994.
As minister of foreign affairs in Egypt, Boutros-Ghali facilitated an arms deal in 1990, which was to result in $26 million of mortar bombs, rocket launchers, grenades and ammunition being flown from Cairo to Rwanda. The arms were used by Hutus in attacks which led to up to a million deaths. The role of Boutros-Ghali, who was in charge at the U.N. when it turned its back on the killings in 1994, was revealed in a book by Linda Melvern. In "A People Betrayed: The Role of the West in Rwanda's Genocide," Boutros-Ghali admits his role in approving an initial $5.8 million arms deal in 1990, which led to Egypt supplying arms to Rwanda until 1992. He says he approved it because it was his job as foreign minister to sell weapons for Egypt.
Back in 1997, there were reports Belgian U.N. troops roasted a Somali boy. A military court reportedly sentenced two paratroopers to a month in jail and a fine of 200 pounds for the offense.
Another Belgian soldier reportedly forced a young Somali to eat pork, drink salt water and then eat his own vomit. Another sergeant was accused of murdering a Somali whom he was photographed urinating upon. Another child, accused of stealing food from the paratroopers' base, died after being locked in a storage container for 48 hours. Fifteen other members of the same regiment were investigated in 1995 for "acts of sadism and torture" against Somali civilians.
The pattern of abuse was not confined to Belgian troops. Belgium was actually the third country in the peacekeeping group to charge troops with serious crimes against Somali citizens -- including rape, torture and murder. In 1995, a group of Canadian paratroopers were investigated for torturing a Somali to death and killing three others.
Gruesome photos were published in a Milan magazine of Italian soldiers torturing a Somali youth and abusing and raping a Somali girl. Paratroopers claim they were specifically trained in methods of torture to aid interrogation. According to one witness, Italian soldiers tied a young Somali girl to the front of an armored personnel carrier and raped her while officers looked on.
This is merely an article, not video, possibly not graphic enough testimony that something actually has happened, so if you take exception to the provenance of this piece, I'll understand, Lynx.
If you require additional proof, I will endeavor to provide it.
Busyman
03-02-2005, 09:31 PM
The UN is always a "sticky" group when it comes to accountabilty.
Are the donor countries at fault or the UN?
If it's the UN then it's leader needs to take action.
If it's the donor country then it's leader.....
At the same time does the UN get the credit when it puts together a peacekeeping mission but at the same time holds no responsibility when things go awry on those missions.
The article may be slanted but brings forth valid arguments underneath the bullshit.
Besides which, it is not exactly a new story...
THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
U.N. 'peacekeepers' rape women, children
Widespread sex scandal threatens to become 'United Nations' Abu Ghraib'
Posted: December 24, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
With the United Nations already under fire for the Oil-for-Food mega-scandal and other corruption, sensational allegations of rampant sexual exploitation and rape of young girls and women by the U.N.'s so-called "peacekeepers" and civilian staffers in the Congo is dragging the global body's reputation to an all-time low.
In a new report referring to the widespread sex scandal as "the U.N.'s Abu Ghraib," the London Times provides some specific examples, including:
* A French U.N. logistics expert in the Congo shot pornographic videos in his home, in which he had converted his bedroom into a photo studio for videotaping his sexual abuse of young girls. When police raided his home, the man was allegedly about to rape a 12-year-old girl sent to him in a law enforcement sting operation. As the Times reported, a senior Congolese police officer confirmed the bed was surrounded by large mirrors on three sides, with a remote control camera on the fourth side.
* U.N. officials are worried that the scandal, which already has netted 150 allegations of sex crimes by U.N. staffers, will explode if the pornographic videos and photos, now on sale in Congo, becoming public
"It would be a pretty big problem for the U.N. if these pictures come out," one senior official told the Times.
* Two Russian pilots paid young girls with jars of mayonnaise and jam to have sex with them, the report adds.
* U.N. "peacekeepers" from Morocco based in Kisangani a secluded town on the Congo River are notorious for impregnating local women and girls. In March, an international group probing the scandal found 82 women and girls had been made pregnant by Moroccan U.N. staffers and 59 others by Uruguayan staffers. One U.N. soldier accused of rape was apparently hidden in the barracks for a year.
Congo's Minister of Defense Maj.-Gen. Jean Pierre Ondekane told a top U.N. official that all U.N. "peacekeepers" in Kisangani would be remember for would be "for running after little girls," the Times reported.
* And at least two U.N. officials a Ukrainian and a Canadian have been forced to leave the African nation after getting local women pregnant.
Most of the sexual abuse and exploitation, says the report, involves trading sex for money, food or jobs. However, some victims say they were raped, but later given food or money to make the incident appear to have been consensual "rape disguised as prostitution."
U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Jean-Marie Guehenno told the London paper: "The fact that these things happened is a blot on us. It's awful. What is important is to get to the bottom of it and fight it and make sure that people who do that pay for what they have done."
Despite the fact that the U.N.'s sexual code of conduct is prominently displayed on U.N. facilities Congo forbidding sex with prostitutes or women under 18 the U.N. continues to hand out free condoms to "peacekeepers" to protect them from AIDS.
The U.N. has promised to investigate and prosecute the widespread allegations. But, as WND reported last month, the global organization is not known for its forthrightness and candor in such internal investigations. The agency has been criticized for ignoring evidence or wrongdoing in the past including accusations of rape and murder by "peacekeepers."
In fact, previous revelations of peacekeeping abuses have only been revealed by news organizations. Such was the case in Cambodia in the early 1990s and later in Somalia, Bosnia and Ethiopia.
"I am afraid there is clear evidence that acts of gross misconduct have taken place," Secretary-General Kofi Annan admitted. "This is a shameful thing for the United Nations to have to say, and I am absolutely outraged by it."
Annan said the allegations concerned a small number of U.N. personnel and promised to hold those involved accountable.
"I have long made it clear that my attitude to sexual exploitation and abuse is one of zero tolerance, without exception, and I am determined to implement this policy in the most transparent manner," Annan said.
But Jordans Prince Zeid Raad Al Hussein, a special adviser to Annan and who led one investigative team, said in a confidential report obtained by The Times: "The situation appears to be one of 'zero-compliance with zero-tolerance' throughout the mission."
The new charges of rape and pedophilia by U.N. troops and workers in Congo are not the first scandal involving U.N. workers and troops in Africa.
Former United Nations Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali's tenure was marked by scandalous charges that he played a leading role in supplying weapons to the Hutu regime that carried out a campaign of genocide against the Tutsi tribe in 1994.
As minister of foreign affairs in Egypt, Boutros-Ghali facilitated an arms deal in 1990, which was to result in $26 million of mortar bombs, rocket launchers, grenades and ammunition being flown from Cairo to Rwanda. The arms were used by Hutus in attacks which led to up to a million deaths. The role of Boutros-Ghali, who was in charge at the U.N. when it turned its back on the killings in 1994, was revealed in a book by Linda Melvern. In "A People Betrayed: The Role of the West in Rwanda's Genocide," Boutros-Ghali admits his role in approving an initial $5.8 million arms deal in 1990, which led to Egypt supplying arms to Rwanda until 1992. He says he approved it because it was his job as foreign minister to sell weapons for Egypt.
Back in 1997, there were reports Belgian U.N. troops roasted a Somali boy. A military court reportedly sentenced two paratroopers to a month in jail and a fine of 200 pounds for the offense.
Another Belgian soldier reportedly forced a young Somali to eat pork, drink salt water and then eat his own vomit. Another sergeant was accused of murdering a Somali whom he was photographed urinating upon. Another child, accused of stealing food from the paratroopers' base, died after being locked in a storage container for 48 hours. Fifteen other members of the same regiment were investigated in 1995 for "acts of sadism and torture" against Somali civilians.
The pattern of abuse was not confined to Belgian troops. Belgium was actually the third country in the peacekeeping group to charge troops with serious crimes against Somali citizens -- including rape, torture and murder. In 1995, a group of Canadian paratroopers were investigated for torturing a Somali to death and killing three others.
Gruesome photos were published in a Milan magazine of Italian soldiers torturing a Somali youth and abusing and raping a Somali girl. Paratroopers claim they were specifically trained in methods of torture to aid interrogation. According to one witness, Italian soldiers tied a young Somali girl to the front of an armored personnel carrier and raped her while officers looked on.
This is merely an article, not video, possibly not graphic enough testimony that something actually has happened, so if you take exception to the provenance of this piece, I'll understand, Lynx.
If you require additional proof, I will endeavor to provide it.You now appear to be trying (but failing miserably) to pretend to have missed the point of the original article, which wasn't to highlight what has been done by a relatively small number of troops (out of many thousands deployed) but to attempt to suggest that the U.N. is doing nothing about it.
The charges being laid were against those at the top for inaction, that's what there is no proof about. Indeed, the article you have just quoted shows that action is indeed being taken. "There were reports", "In another report", "a group of Canadian paratroopers were investigated". Just who do you think is making these reports and performing these investigations?
It certainly isn't Michelle Malkin, judging from her blogs she appears to have an attention span of about 10 minutes, and just about everything she produces is a version of something which has appeared elsewhere, but twisted to meet her own distorted agenda.
Keep twisting things however much you want, J2, if you think you are convincing anyone of your sincerity you are simply fooling yourself.
You now appear to be trying (but failing miserably) to pretend to have missed the point of the original article, which wasn't to highlight what has been done by a relatively small number of troops (out of many thousands deployed) but to attempt to suggest that the U.N. is doing nothing about it.
The charges being laid were against those at the top for inaction, that's what there is no proof about. Indeed, the article you have just quoted shows that action is indeed being taken. "There were reports", "In another report", "a group of Canadian paratroopers were investigated". Just who do you think is making these reports and performing these investigations?
It certainly isn't Michelle Malkin, judging from her blogs she appears to have an attention span of about 10 minutes, and just about everything she produces is a version of something which has appeared elsewhere, but twisted to meet her own distorted agenda.
Keep twisting things however much you want, J2, if you think you are convincing anyone of your sincerity you are simply fooling yourself.
Ah.
I will not plead guilty to unfairly painting Kofi Annan a rapist by proxy, as you accuse me of doing, Lynx-I merely point up the story to backstop my opinion that Annan and his cronies (please don't dispute me on this, for that is precisely what they are) ought to be done in for their utter incompetence, not because they partook directly in the activity, but because they don't accept that they are at all responsible for the actions of their field operatives.
Besides, I never fool myself; it's just not nice.
BTW-Annan's predecessor, Mr. Boutros-Boutros Ghali, should be hauled out of retirement to face the same music, as it appears he also presided over the O.F.F. scandal ;)
Just who do you think is making these reports and performing these investigations? Well?
Sorry if you've covered this, I only skimmed most of the posts, but is Kofi Annan actually responsible (technically) for either this or the oil for food thing? The little I understand of it is that he has no power/responsibility for peacekeeping operations or the oil for food thing as these are both the pet projects of the UN security council?
I realise he is marginally as some of the officials involved in this sex scandal may fall within his domain and he is implicated by association on the oil for food thing. But I think the case against him in particular is overstated, isn't it?
Biggles
03-02-2005, 11:22 PM
Old BBG could not have had much of an opportunity to get involved with the kick backs from the oil for food thing. Although the decision to set up the programme was taken in 1995 it was December 1996 before the oil starting moving. Boutros left office in 1996.
However, Boutros was something of bette noir for the US; even more than Kofi who was actually the Clinton Administration's choice when they vetoed Boutros from a second term (although I appreciate that the fact he was Clinton's choice may explain much :shifty: )
On a point of order above regarding the Rwandan massacre - the weapon of choice as I recall was the machette. The Rwandan massacre was a true nightmare but I doubt anyone could have stopped it. It was an explosion of violence, neighbour against neighbour. An orgy of violence carried out in a surprisingly short timescale that seems almost impossible to explain in the cold light of day. On reflection it was more like a Shlock horror film than a historical event. In this light, the inter-governmental sale of $26m of arms is something of a red herring You don't get a huge amount of anything for $26m and you certainly can't equip an army for it.
That is essentially the problem. So much of the criticism of the UN revolves around red herrings and ground axes. The UN is not perfect and as RF pointed out soldiers can sometimes be less than angelic especially when faced with an unseen enemy and a continual drip of terrorist attacks.
All organisations have had problems with embezzlers, exploiters and criminals including armies, chuches and banks. The UN is working in the poorest most dysfunctional parts of the globe and is often under-funded and under-resourced. This is not excuse for those that commit the crimes simply that it increases their opportunity to do so undetected.
The difficulty is, who would plug the gap if all the UN agencies pulled out? Would we return to devil take the hindmost? Whilst the ball has been dropped a few times by the UN, what if there was no one to even try and catch it?
I support the UN not out of any ideological or political attachment but because I believe its net effect has been for the better not worse. If there were to be a more effective alternative I would have no sentiment about moving to the new. However, most of the criticism is short on alternatives.
On a separate issue, what actually drives the criticism against the UN? It largely appears to emanate from one political wing of one country.
Why does the Yak party of Outer Mongolia dislike the UN so much? ;)
Well?
I acknowledge the U.N. is investigating the matter.
So what?
If I remember correctly (and I do, I assure you), the U.N. didn't instigate the investigation until it was reported by another party...perhaps it was the complainants? :whistling
On a point of order above regarding the Rwandan massacre - the weapon of choice as I recall was the machette. The Rwandan massacre was a true nightmare but I doubt anyone could have stopped it. It was an explosion of violence, neighbour against neighbour. An orgy of violence carried out in a surprisingly short timescale that seems almost impossible to explain in the cold light of day.
On a separate issue, what actually drives the criticism against the UN? It largely appears to emanate from one political wing of one country.
Why does the Yak party of Outer Mongolia dislike the UN so much? ;)
Would that you were around when myfiles3000 was attempting a keel-haul of the U.S. for not stopping the Rwandan massacre, Bigglesworth.
As to your last, apparently I am a party of one, albeit with two wings.
I am not a yak, although I have done, but neither have I set foot/hoof/talon in any area of Mongolia, Outer or otherwise.
Busyman
03-03-2005, 12:51 AM
I acknowledge the U.N. is investigating the matter.
So what?
If I remember correctly (and I do, I assure you), the U.N. didn't instigate the investigation until it was reported by another party...perhaps it was the complainants? :whistling
............similar to pictures from Abu Gharib........ :whistling
............similar to pictures from Abu Gharib........ :whistling
Touche. ;)
hobbes
03-03-2005, 01:13 AM
so the united nations is just a front kept for a network of peadophiles and rapists.
...and i'm crazy for doubting a plane hit the pentagon :rolleyes:
Popular Mechanics magazine did an article evaluating 9/11 conspiracy theories.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html? (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=2&c=y)
To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military
In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense.
Exerpts:
Though dozens of witnesses saw a Boeing 757 hit the building, conspiracy advocates insist there is evidence that a missile or a different type of plane smashed into the Pentagon.
Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/0305911-flight77-sm.jpg
People tend to cling to theories that support what they want to believe.
Exactly so, Hobbes.
That they should want to believe such things is a bit curious.
Documented fact: U.N. personnel are committing atrocities in the Congo.
Conclusion? Impossible-and even if it did happen, it's not the U.N.'s fault.
Conspiracy theory: A military transport plane remotely controlled by the CIA hit the Pentagon.
Conclusion? Just as I thought; it only stands to reason this is true, and everyone knows it; besides, who but the U.S. would do something so horrible?
Busyman
03-03-2005, 01:51 AM
Exactly so, Hobbes.
That they should want to believe such things is a bit curious.
Documented fact: U.N. personnel are committing atrocities in the Congo.
Conclusion? Impossible-and even if it did happen, it's not the U.N.'s fault.
Conspiracy theory: A military transport plane remotely controlled by the CIA hit the Pentagon.
Conclusion? Just as I thought; it only stands to reason this is true, and everyone knows it; besides, who but the U.S. would do something so horrible?
Conspiracy theory: One of the planes on 9/11 was shot down in Pennsylvania and didn't conveniently crash in the woods..... :whistling
I will not plead guilty to unfairly painting Kofi Annan a rapist by proxy, as you accuse me of doingI did not accuse you of this, I said you were unjustly accusing the U.N of inaction. Perhaps you should enrol in a remedial reading class.
my opinion that Annan and his cronies (please don't dispute me on this, for that is precisely what they are)I can't dispute your opinion? Just exactly who do you think you are?
Documented fact: U.N. personnel are committing atrocities in the Congo.
Conclusion? Impossible-and even if it did happen, it's not the U.N.'s fault.
Once again, you attempt to twist the facts and conclusions.
I repeat that NO ONE HAS DENIED THE EVENTS THAT HAVE OCCURED IN THE CONGO. But that doesn't suit the ridiculous point of view that you are trying to promote, so you ignore it. Instead you continue with the preposterous idea that the U.N. senior personel neither care nor have any interest in the events. Why are you so insistent on this point, yet are unable to present even the smallest shred of evidence.
No doubt you will once again resort to producing undisputed evidence that attrocities have occured. Please try to stick to the point, your wanderings are getting a little tedious. To be any good at spreading untruths you have to remember how the untruths fit together. Your story is hanging in tatters.
Biggles
03-03-2005, 02:57 PM
Conspiracy theory: One of the planes on 9/11 was shot down in Pennsylvania and didn't conveniently crash in the woods..... :whistling
To be fair, that would not be so much a conspiracy theory as simply providing the public with a palliative. If they could have shot all four planes down in time I think they would/should have. Moreover, whilst it would have been hard for the relatives to bear it would have been the right thing to do saving as it would have over 3000 lives.
A conspiracy, rather than simply drawing a veil over an unpleasant truth would be that somehow 9/11 was allowed. As I have said before, this credits Governments with more nous than they dispay in any other sphere of activity and consequently unlikely.
J2 I don't recall the person you mention - any relative of Billy or Leftism :)
Nevertheless, look on the bright side - if you have two wings you can fly in straight lines - those with only one are doomed to fly in circles.
Busyman
03-03-2005, 06:29 PM
To be fair, that would not be so much a conspiracy theory as simply providing the public with a palliative. If they could have shot all four planes down in time I think they would/should have. Moreover, whilst it would have been hard for the relatives to bear it would have been the right thing to do saving as it would have over 3000 lives.
The government would never admit it though. We are a litigation nation. I too think it would have been the right thing to do.
Whoever shot the plane down was very good to make it crash in an unpopulated area. :(
I did not accuse you of this, I said you were unjustly accusing the U.N of inaction. Perhaps you should enrol in a remedial reading class.
I haven't accused them of any such thing.
I have said that, as these types of things continue to come to light, we are expected to accept that Annan and his cronies are not responsible, and that by their act of instituting an "investigation", we are to be placated and soothed.
Now, my understanding of the way things work at the U.N. informs me that Kofi Annan is, indeed, the leader of the U.N., and, as such, is answerable for these offenses to an extent beyond merely "investigating" (as an in-house function, mind you), the matter.
The U.N. is not a country, last I looked, and if it cannot be held accountable by anyone, including it's members (I think the U.S. qualifies on that point), then what are we to do when things like this occur?
I can't dispute your opinion? Just exactly who do you think you are?
Oh...have I over-stepped?
Sorry.
Dispute as you will, sir.
BTW-I would be remiss if I didn't point out that you know who I am, Lynx; we've both been here quite some time.
I am also aware of who you are, though I am not sure you are aware of this.
Once again, you attempt to twist the facts and conclusions.
I repeat that NO ONE HAS DENIED THE EVENTS THAT HAVE OCCURED IN THE CONGO. But that doesn't suit the ridiculous point of view that you are trying to promote, so you ignore it. Instead you continue with the preposterous idea that the U.N. senior personel neither care nor have any interest in the events. Why are you so insistent on this point, yet are unable to present even the smallest shred of evidence.
I haven't said that you denied the relevent events, Lynx, though if one re-reads your initial postings in this thread, I think it fair to conclude that you left out any acknowledgement of same; I sensed you thought it a tactical omission for later utility, but felt it better to play along out of my (rapidly-waning) respect for your usual presentation.
I have not said senior U.N. personnel do not care, but I believe they think they are entitled to slide from under any blame whatsoever (as long as they investigate), and I feel this sense of privilege accrues to their knowledge that much of the world thinks in the same wishy-washy way you do.
Insofar as I have expressed disgust at Annan's handling of the various and sundry scandals (I'm sure you'd prefer another word), I have never presented it as any other than my own opinion, which you now propose I validate by offering up some undefinable proof?
I offered Ms. Malkin's column up as an opinion with which I agreed; I wasn't aware expressing an opinion on this board required any proof, and frankly, I can't remember anyone being berated (as I am, here) over such an obvious and willful misinterpretation of a post.
No doubt you will once again resort to producing undisputed evidence that attrocities have occured. Please try to stick to the point, your wanderings are getting a little tedious. To be any good at spreading untruths you have to remember how the untruths fit together. Your story is hanging in tatters.
I would think that if I stopped "...once again resort(ing) to producing undisputed evidence that attrocities have occured...", then you would have reason to carp, Lynx.
I must say, I find your pique, as well as your tone, to be entirely atypical of your normally excellent demeanor, style and ability.
vidcc
03-04-2005, 12:55 AM
To the accountability I think that the question should be if the investigation finds specific evidence against the actual persons concerned and then nothing is done then I would say that heads at the top need to roll. ...the buck always stops at the top...
But here is where the difficulty comes in. Identification of the actual individuals and bringing them to justice. It is not good enough to say that "U.N." personnel did it and charge the whole U.N.
The U.N. should not be the ones to punish these sex crimes, however they should be bringing their full weight down on the country of residence of any that have evidence against them to bring them to trial.
J2 I don't recall the person you mention - any relative of Billy or Leftism
myfiles3000 was a bit before your time, I think.
I don't believe he was related to either Billy or Leftism, though they may have shared some course-work somewhere back down the line.
myfiles had genuine ability (which I didn't mind granting him), no matter that he was a bit misguided.
I can actually say that I miss him; we developed a rapport after our initial clashing, and found much common ground.
This never really happened with Lefty, or 1234; Billy and I got on fine, too, after a while, as long as we stayed off issues.
I'm quite sure Hobbes remembers him, also Clocker-I'd bet that Lynx remembers him as well.
We went round about the war in Iraq, right as it begun; lots of fun-wish you'd been about the place just then-you'd have enjoyed the bloodshed, I think.
:)
To the accountability I think that the question should be if the investigation finds specific evidence against the actual persons concerned and then nothing is done then I would say that heads at the top need to roll. ...the buck always stops at the top...
The inclusion of the word "buck" implies that there is blame to be shared; indeed, "bucks" are usually "passed", and this would occur whether or not there is evidence of direct responsibility, vid.
Pick your "heads need to roll" version, or the "buck always stops..."; either one can only work in the absense of the other.
Thank you. :)
J2, when an opinion is presented which attacks others it is usual to offer backup evidence to support the claims; if not the presented opinion is worthless. The original article was an overt but unsubstantiated attack on the integrity of the U.N., thinly disguised behind a dubious concern for those affected by the sex scandal. You clearly aligned yourself with the article and it's intent with your opening comments, not least "Does this reflect on Kofi Annan at all?"
Since then, when asked to provide some backup to your opinion you have attempted to deflect, divert and disseminate from the original. Since it is your own opinion you are being asked to support, yet repeatedly fail to do so, I can only assume that you feel as I do, namely that the opinion has no merit.
I hope you feel comfortable in Ms Malkin's foul swamp of innuendo and half-truths, I didn't think someone clearly capable of honest thinking could abide such a cess-pit. I'll leave you to it, but feel free to holler should you need any help getting out.
edit: typo, I know how you like to pick up on these as another way of diversion.
J2, when an opinion is presented which attacks others it is usual to offer backup evidence to support the claims; if not the presented opinion is worthless. The original article was an overt but unsubstantiated attack on the integrity of the U.N., thinly disguised behind a dubious concern for those affected by the sex scandal. You clearly aligned yourself with the article and it's intent with your opening comments, not least "Does this reflect on Kofi Annan at all?"
Since then, when asked to provide some backup to your opinion you have attempted to deflect, divert and disseminate from the original. Since it is your own opinion you are being asked to support, yet repeatedly fail to do so, I can only assume that you feel as I do, namely that the opinion has no merit.
I hope you feel comfortable in Ms Malkin's foul swamp of innuendo and half-truths, I didn't think someone clearly capable of honest thinking could abide such a cess-pit. I'll leave you to it, but feel free to holler should you need any help getting out.
edit: typo, I know how you like to pick up on these as another way of diversion.
Alright, Lynx-only because it's you.
As precisely as you can:
1 What unmerited claims are being made, by Ms. Malkin or myself?
2 What is it exactly that you require proof of?
3 What issues are wanting substantiation?
I am off for the moment to engage in a bit of capitalist consumption; I will tend to your response as soon as is humanly possible.
UN slow to respond to child sex abuse by Congo staff
By Caroline Overington
New York correspondent
New York
February 18, 2005
Late last year, police in the Democratic Republic of Congo decided to find out if it was true that United Nations peacekeepers and aid workers were raping girls as young as 12.
They set up a sting: a child was sent to the home of senior UN worker Didier Bourguet, who was thought to be among the worst offenders.
Bourguet allegedly tried to have sex with the girl, prompting police to raid the house. They found his bedroom set up like a film studio for making pornographic films. There were mirrors on three bedroom walls, and on the fourth wall, a camera that Bourguet could operate with a remote control.
On his computer, they allegedly found dozens of videos and photos of him having sex with children. In one photo, tears are rolling down the face of a victim.
Bourguet is on trial in France, but his arrest hardly ends the matter. The UN has since admitted that some of its peacekeepers regularly raped, abused and prostituted children in their care.
Besides Bourguet, the UN has collected information about two peacekeepers in Congo who gave young girls jars of mayonnaise and jam in exchange for sex.
AdvertisementAdvertisement
In another case, a 14-year-old girl has told UN investigators that she had sex with a UN peacekeeper in exchange for two eggs; her family was starving.
Another girl, also 14, took food from an apparently friendly peacekeeper on four occasions. On the fifth, he asked for sex. She agreed, in exchange for $US2 ($A2.50), bread and chocolate.
The UN has known about these abuses for some time but is only now scrambling to respond to the charges.
The impetus was a documentary, shown on the American ABC network this week in which girls in Congo, formerly known as Zaire, came forward to detail the abuse. One woman said her 15-year-old daughter, who is deaf and mute, was made pregnant by a UN official. She went to the gates of a UN camp to plead for food or other help for the girl, who has since given birth to a son, but she was turned away.
A girl, 13, said she was a prostitute for UN soldiers, who paid her $US1.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's special representative in Congo, William Lucy Swing, said when the abuse reports surfaced: "We are shocked, we are outraged, we are sickened by it."
Mr Annan has acknowledged that "acts of gross misconduct have taken place". Yet he seems immune to the outrage. In response on Wednesday to questions in New York about the scandal, he urged UN troops "to be careful" not to "fraternise" with these "vulnerable people".
Mr Annan previously headed the UN's peacekeeping force. Asked whether he could have done more to prevent the abuse in Congo, he said: "You never know when you send that many people out. There may be one or two bad apples."
Congolese Defence Minister Jean Pierre Ondekane has said all the UN would be remembered for in his country was "running after little girls".
U.N. 'peacekeepers' rape women, children
Widespread sex scandal threatens to become 'United Nations' Abu Ghraib'
Posted: December 24, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
With the United Nations already under fire for the Oil-for-Food mega-scandal and other corruption, sensational allegations of rampant sexual exploitation and rape of young girls and women by the U.N.'s so-called "peacekeepers" and civilian staffers in the Congo is dragging the global body's reputation to an all-time low.
In a new report referring to the widespread sex scandal as "the U.N.'s Abu Ghraib," the London Times provides some specific examples, including:
* A French U.N. logistics expert in the Congo shot pornographic videos in his home, in which he had converted his bedroom into a photo studio for videotaping his sexual abuse of young girls. When police raided his home, the man was allegedly about to rape a 12-year-old girl sent to him in a law enforcement sting operation. As the Times reported, a senior Congolese police officer confirmed the bed was surrounded by large mirrors on three sides, with a remote control camera on the fourth side.
* U.N. officials are worried that the scandal, which already has netted 150 allegations of sex crimes by U.N. staffers, will explode if the pornographic videos and photos, now on sale in Congo, becoming public
"It would be a pretty big problem for the U.N. if these pictures come out," one senior official told the Times.
* Two Russian pilots paid young girls with jars of mayonnaise and jam to have sex with them, the report adds.
* U.N. "peacekeepers" from Morocco based in Kisangani a secluded town on the Congo River are notorious for impregnating local women and girls. In March, an international group probing the scandal found 82 women and girls had been made pregnant by Moroccan U.N. staffers and 59 others by Uruguayan staffers. One U.N. soldier accused of rape was apparently hidden in the barracks for a year.
Congo's Minister of Defense Maj.-Gen. Jean Pierre Ondekane told a top U.N. official that all U.N. "peacekeepers" in Kisangani would be remember for would be "for running after little girls," the Times reported.
* And at least two U.N. officials a Ukrainian and a Canadian have been forced to leave the African nation after getting local women pregnant.
Most of the sexual abuse and exploitation, says the report, involves trading sex for money, food or jobs. However, some victims say they were raped, but later given food or money to make the incident appear to have been consensual "rape disguised as prostitution."
U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Jean-Marie Guehenno told the London paper: "The fact that these things happened is a blot on us. It's awful. What is important is to get to the bottom of it and fight it and make sure that people who do that pay for what they have done."
Despite the fact that the U.N.'s sexual code of conduct is prominently displayed on U.N. facilities Congo forbidding sex with prostitutes or women under 18 the U.N. continues to hand out free condoms to "peacekeepers" to protect them from AIDS.
The U.N. has promised to investigate and prosecute the widespread allegations. But, as WND reported last month, the global organization is not known for its forthrightness and candor in such internal investigations. The agency has been criticized for ignoring evidence or wrongdoing in the past including accusations of rape and murder by "peacekeepers."
In fact, previous revelations of peacekeeping abuses have only been revealed by news organizations. Such was the case in Cambodia in the early 1990s and later in Somalia, Bosnia and Ethiopia.
"I am afraid there is clear evidence that acts of gross misconduct have taken place," Secretary-General Kofi Annan admitted. "This is a shameful thing for the United Nations to have to say, and I am absolutely outraged by it."
Annan said the allegations concerned a small number of U.N. personnel and promised to hold those involved accountable.
"I have long made it clear that my attitude to sexual exploitation and abuse is one of zero tolerance, without exception, and I am determined to implement this policy in the most transparent manner," Annan said.
But Jordans Prince Zeid Raad Al Hussein, a special adviser to Annan and who led one investigative team, said in a confidential report obtained by The Times: "The situation appears to be one of 'zero-compliance with zero-tolerance' throughout the mission."
The new charges of rape and pedophilia by U.N. troops and workers in Congo are not the first scandal involving U.N. workers and troops in Africa.
Former United Nations Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali's tenure was marked by scandalous charges that he played a leading role in supplying weapons to the Hutu regime that carried out a campaign of genocide against the Tutsi tribe in 1994.
As minister of foreign affairs in Egypt, Boutros-Ghali facilitated an arms deal in 1990, which was to result in $26 million of mortar bombs, rocket launchers, grenades and ammunition being flown from Cairo to Rwanda. The arms were used by Hutus in attacks which led to up to a million deaths. The role of Boutros-Ghali, who was in charge at the U.N. when it turned its back on the killings in 1994, was revealed in a book by Linda Melvern. In "A People Betrayed: The Role of the West in Rwanda's Genocide," Boutros-Ghali admits his role in approving an initial $5.8 million arms deal in 1990, which led to Egypt supplying arms to Rwanda until 1992. He says he approved it because it was his job as foreign minister to sell weapons for Egypt.
Back in 1997, there were reports Belgian U.N. troops roasted a Somali boy. A military court reportedly sentenced two paratroopers to a month in jail and a fine of 200 pounds for the offense.
Another Belgian soldier reportedly forced a young Somali to eat pork, drink salt water and then eat his own vomit. Another sergeant was accused of murdering a Somali whom he was photographed urinating upon. Another child, accused of stealing food from the paratroopers' base, died after being locked in a storage container for 48 hours. Fifteen other members of the same regiment were investigated in 1995 for "acts of sadism and torture" against Somali civilians.
The pattern of abuse was not confined to Belgian troops. Belgium was actually the third country in the peacekeeping group to charge troops with serious crimes against Somali citizens -- including rape, torture and murder. In 1995, a group of Canadian paratroopers were investigated for torturing a Somali to death and killing three others.
Gruesome photos were published in a Milan magazine of Italian soldiers torturing a Somali youth and abusing and raping a Somali girl. Paratroopers claim they were specifically trained in methods of torture to aid interrogation. According to one witness, Italian soldiers tied a young Somali girl to the front of an armored personnel carrier and raped her while officers looked on.
Congo: Girls Allege Rape
Commentary by Steve Harrigan for FOX Fan Central
Feb. 22, 2005
Democratic Republic of Congo
Our team here in the Congo found another group of girls who say they have been raped by U.N. peacekeepers. We've been interviewing four or five a day. It is easy to get hardened or callous after three or four days of it. The first girl, age 11, sat down and told her story. It was mesmerizing. She said she was going down to the lake to wash clothes when she was taken. She sat in the chair and spoke Swahili in a soft voice. After 10 or 12 such girls it was hard to take in.
One afternoon outside of the humanitarian organization Save the Children, part of our team pulled up in a minivan with three more girls three more girls who claim to have been raped. I looked them over to see if there would be anything different about their stories.
One girl got out of the van. She was 9 years old, but she was a big 9-year-old. To me, she looked like the other girls. I didn't see how it would add or change the story, but Z said we should interview her since we were there. So we did. I asked her to do the interview. I went back to the car. I didn't even stand around to listen. I had heard enough. I would read the transcript after it was translated.
Save the Children was not much help. The guard outside the gate told us in French, "Just the whites, the blacks stay outside." Half of our team is black. The guard himself was black. When we finally got in, the administrator said they mostly dealt with reuniting families. They didn't deal with little girls allegedly raped by U.N. peacekeepers. So we left.
We found three more girls yesterday, all who said they were raped by U.N. peacekeepers here in Congo. This time it was something different. One of them was tiny. She was just above my knee when she stood up. I thought she must be a younger sister of one of the victims. In fact she was one of the victims, 7 years old. When we put her in the chair to interview her, her feet did not touch the ground. Her internal organs had been damaged. She had a tiny red smock on and her head was shaved. She had not been to the doctor to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases, but the local children's organization we found her through thought she may have gonorrhea.
The shot I wanted to get was myself walking with her, to show how small she was. We went back to the scene of the alleged crime, the high grass about 20 yards away from the barbed wire wall of one of the U.N. peacekeeper bases here in Goma. The little 7-year-old girl slowly put both arms above her head, hands together, elbows out, as if trying to shelter herself from an attack that had happened weeks ago. I walked with her off the path and a few steps into the grass. She stopped. I wanted to see the exact spot where she said she was raped. The translator was on the phone. I asked her if this was the spot. She said something and the little girl's arms went up over her head again. She took a couple more steps, then pointed at the long green grass in front of us, then she turned around, arms still over her head, and began to walk back toward the path.
There's lots more where this came from.
I hear the U.N. has adopted a "Zero Tolerance-no fraternization" policy which is being ignored with total impugnity.
Boy, that Kofi Annan sure carries a big stick, huh?
The man personnifies effective leadership.
I say we try to sign him to a lifetime deal! :dry:
vidcc
03-05-2005, 01:23 AM
so what is it you want from him?
so what is it you want from him?I can only assume he wants the U.N. to follow the Bush administration's example and go around locking up everyone in sight without a shred of evidence. No doubt a little torture is on the agenda too.
Not even a good attempt, J2, more evidence of what hasn't been disputed.
I hear the U.N. has adopted a "Zero Tolerance-no fraternization" policy which is being ignored with total impugnity.But nothing to back up that claim. Until you can (or at least attempt since you'll have difficulty actually backing it up), I'm not going to respond again.
Not even a good attempt, J2, more evidence of what hasn't been disputed.
Nor has it been defined, Lynx, and quit being so damn snippy-you're sounding like someone who won't believe proof unless you are literally bludgeoned into submission by it.
But nothing to back up that claim. Until you can (or at least attempt since you'll have difficulty actually backing it up), I'm not going to respond again.
I have found video of U.N. personnel with these local women, showing some of the U.N. higher-ups squiring the women around in plainly labeled U.N. vehicles; this video was apparently taken after the U.N. issued their non-fraternization order.
My problem is one of computor literacy; I can't figure out how to link to it as it is property of FOXNEWS.
I will, nonetheless, endeavor to persevere-if I manage to do it, you will see it.
vidcc
03-05-2005, 08:36 PM
I have found video of U.N. personnel with these local women, showing some of the U.N. higher-ups squiring the women around in plainly labeled U.N. vehicles; this video was apparently taken after the U.N. issued their non-fraternization order.
J2-
I believe the evidence lynx is trying to get to is evidence of the UN ignoring it, not evidence that persons operating under the UN actually did these things. Nobody has said these things did not happen.
You have dismissed any possible use of the international criminal court, and suggested that the UN has ignored it even though it has issued guidelines of "operations". You didn't comment on my opinion as to what the UN should be doing if evidence of "specific individuals" committing these acts is found and then the UN does nothing.
The case of the "sting" operations. Are you suggesting that those people "got away with it" despite being caught? what action do you want from the UN? surely they are/will be charged and tried in the appropriate court.
Hypothetically lets say one of the rapists was American. Would you accept him being tried in the international criminal court? (seeing as we haven't signed up for that) If not what would you suggest the UN do in regards of this American?
Just what exactly do you want from Mr. A ?
J2-
I believe the evidence lynx is trying to get to is evidence of the UN ignoring it, not evidence that persons operating under the UN actually did these things. Nobody has said these things did not happen.
You have dismissed any possible use of the international criminal court, and suggested that the UN has ignored it even though it has issued guidelines of "operations". You didn't comment on my opinion as to what the UN should be doing if evidence of "specific individuals" committing these acts is found and then the UN does nothing.
The case of the "sting" operations. Are you suggesting that those people "got away with it" despite being caught? what action do you want from the UN? surely they are/will be charged and tried in the appropriate court.
Hypothetically lets say one of the rapists was American. Would you accept him being tried in the international criminal court? (seeing as we haven't signed up for that) If not what would you suggest the UN do in regards of this American?
We could always send him to Gitmo.
Seriously, if an American functionary were to be found amongst the offenders, I say, sure-let's make him a guinea-pig for your precious I.C.C., and see just what it would do.
Why not?
Once he's been treated fairly, then we can let the I.C.C. get on with it's wholesale prosecution of the President, his cabinet, General Franks, and General Abizaid, right?
Just what exactly do you want from Mr. A ?
From Mr "A", I want something other than his bleatings that "...it is unfortunate that the U.N. personnel have chosen to act this way, but their actions are no responsibility of mine, and no reflection on me personally.'
'Any thoughts of exacting a mea culpa from me are misplaced, as well anyone should know..."
Here's a thought:
Why not have the I.C.C., rather than Mr. Annan, look into the situation in the Congo, and, while they're at it, Oil-for-Food?
That's quite possibly the best idea I've had today!
vidcc
03-05-2005, 09:17 PM
From Mr "A", I want something other than his bleatings that "...it is unfortunate that the U.N. personnel have chosen to act this way, but their actions are no responsibility of mine, and no reflection on me personally.'
'Any thoughts of exacting a mea culpa from me are misplaced, as well anyone should know..."
Ok you want something other than that....well....what would that "other" be???? what would be the minimum that would satisfy your sense of accountability and justice?
Here's a thought:
Why not have the I.C.C., rather than Mr. Annan, look into the situation in the Congo, and, while they're at it, Oil-for-Food?
That's quite possibly the best idea I've had today!
Annan is not "looking into it"... UN investigators are. It is not Annans job. Mr. Annan is not Mr. Monk.
B.T.W. the matter is in the hands of the I.C.C.
As to the oil for food issue I have got to the stage of thinking "SO WHAT". I'm fed up with double standards from everywhere. Everyone looks out for their own interests....it's that simple.... If it's in the interest of France to deal the way they do they will, just as we do. After all as far as we are concerned American interests come first...... right?
Ok you want something other than that....well....what would that "other" be???? what would be the minimum that would satisfy your sense of accountability and justice?
Oddly enough, had he left off claiming deniability, that might have done the trick, for me.
He began by poor-mouthing his status as overseer.
Annan is not "looking into it"... UN investigators are. It is not Annans job. Mr. Annan is not Mr. Monk.
I am aware of that, vid.
I think it would be fair to say the investigation is underway at his (grudging) behest?
B.T.W. the matter is in the hands of the I.C.C.
Good.
Is it within their purview to evaluate Annan's conduct?
As an admittedly over-extreme analogy, Hitler wasn't the one gassing Jews, but I have no doubt he'd have been issued a command appearance for the docket at Nuremberg, don't you think?
As to the oil for food issue I have got to the stage of thinking "SO WHAT". I'm fed up with double standards from everywhere. Everyone looks out for their own interests....it's that simple.... If it's in the interest of France to deal the way they do they will, just as we do.
Then you agree; we don't even need the U.N., do we?
After all as far as we are concerned American interests come first...... right?
As you say, vid...
Biggles
03-05-2005, 10:09 PM
The fact that individuals have been caught and are being tried is good. It will demonstrate that just because it is in some forgotten African jungle war it is still not acceptable behaviour.
I would have more sympathy for Fox New's vendetta against Annan if Rumsfeld or Bush had led the way and taken the fall for the crimes commited by their people in Iraq. There appears to be double standards at work here.
However, unless Rumsfeld or Bush ordered the torture I, personally, do not think they should have resigned. You cannot have the CEO of an organisation falling everytime a member of staff commits a crime. Consequently, I do not think Annan's position is affected by this scandal unless he was implicated in it - which as far as I am aware is not the case.
Annan's second term is coming to an end. In about a year there will be the beginnings of the usual jostling and politiking for his successor. If the US wishes to influence that decision, now would be a good time to start bridge building. Regardless of its failings, the UN is a useful tool in a complex and dispirate world.
vidcc
03-05-2005, 10:12 PM
As an admittedly over-extreme analogy, Hitler wasn't the one gassing Jews, but I have no doubt he'd have been issued a command appearance for the docket at Nuremberg, don't you think?
Extreme and kind of totally off context.
Are you suggesting that Annan ordered these rapes to be carried out?
I would have more sympathy for Fox New's vendetta against Annan if Rumsfeld or Bush had led the way and taken the fall for the crimes commited by their people in Iraq. There appears to be double standards at work here.
Does it matter at all that Annan is the head of the organization which purports to be the international arbiter of such things, and that neither Bush nor Rumsfeld IS?
Vid-FFS, would you get real? :dry:
vidcc
03-05-2005, 10:52 PM
Does it matter at all that Annan is the head of the organization which purports to be the international arbiter of such things, and that neither Bush nor Rumsfeld IS?this seems to be the opposite of your previous analogy with Hitler going to court...he after all was not the
head of the organization which purports to be the international arbiter of such things
Vid-FFS, would you get real? :dry:I'm wishing that you would.
I'm well aware of your views of Annan and indeed the UN, but I am still at a loss as to what it is you feel the UN is not doing that they should be doing.
Biggles
03-05-2005, 11:26 PM
Does it matter at all that Annan is the head of the organization which purports to be the international arbiter of such things, and that neither Bush nor Rumsfeld IS?
Vid-FFS, would you get real? :dry:
I think the basic principle is the same regardless of whether it is the UN, a Government or a private company. If the head of any such organisation actively encourages illicit behaviour (such as Enron) then they are rightly held accountable. However, if those employed to do a task several times removed from the CEO enagage in activities not sanctioned by the organisation then the blame rightly falls on their shoulders and not the CEO. The CEO is, of course, expected to exhort his people to try and prevent repetitions. If the argument is that Annan should be more engaged in trying to prevent such things then I would agree that there may be a case to answer. However, this is not the argument of the original piece - which appeared to me to be suggesting some form of isolationism.
I may, of course, have picked up the wrong end of the stick and the journalist is saying, by definition, the use of the military to conduct peacekeeping activities will inevitably lead to such abuses and that it is the concept of peacekeeping itself that is fundamentaly flawed. However, I suspect this is not the thrust of her argument.
I think the basic principle is the same regardless of whether it is the UN, a Government or a private company. If the head of any such organisation actively encourages illicit behaviour (such as Enron) then they are rightly held accountable. However, if those employed to do a task several times removed from the CEO enagage in activities not sanctioned by the organisation then the blame rightly falls on their shoulders and not the CEO. The CEO is, of course, expected to exhort his people to try and prevent repetitions. If the argument is that Annan should be more engaged in trying to prevent such things then I would agree that there may be a case to answer. However, this is not the argument of the original piece - which appeared to me to be suggesting some form of isolationism.
Principle aside, Biggles-to whom is the ultimate authority-for that is what the U.N. is held by most of you to be-accountable?
Busyman
03-06-2005, 10:07 AM
Principle aside, Biggles-to whom is the ultimate authority-for that is what the U.N. is held by most of you to be-accountable?
You have got to be shitting me,
Why do you skirt around the issue when Bush-Abu Gharib comes up or Rumsfeld-Abu Gharib?
If you can't say that Bush needs to be personally accountable although investigations are being done then a STFU is in order.
You are looking like an illogical zealot right now.
Damn man, get you head out of the right-wing websites, news channels, chat-rooms, and "friendly" e-mails.
If an investigation is going on, let it go on. Come on man. As a fellow American, I am worried about you. :(
Biggles
03-06-2005, 10:20 AM
The UN acts on behalf of the member nations. It is funded by the member nations. If you like, the member nations are the share-holders and the full time staff like Annan are the Board Members elected by the shareholders.
If they do not carry out the wishes of the shareholders or pursue goals that are contra to the best interests of the organisation as a whole, then the sharehlders can replace them.
As with any large organisation, if one group of shareholders is unhappy then they must work to convince the others that there is a better alternative. The US currently finds itself in this boat and has so far singularly failed to convince even close friends like the UK that there is a major problem at the Board level.
Whilst appalling, the problems with some of the peacekeeping missions are not unique to the UN and, as I said, policeforces, churches and government care bodies have discovered similar problems in their ranks too. If Annan were to resign over it should the Pope follow suit? I have argued above why I think not, but I can understand where you are coming from. If the route you wish to take were to be followed (and I am not saying it is entirely without merit) I fear many good organisations would be denuded of very capable leaders.
Annan may not be everyones idea of a strong leader but the Secretary General is required to be a diplomat, someone that is both even handed and approachable. Annan does this with considerable grace. Whilst his successor may be a better organiser or administrator he will be a hard act to follow on the International stage.
You have got to be shitting me,
Why do you skirt around the issue when Bush-Abu Gharib comes up or Rumsfeld-Abu Gharib?
If you can't say that Bush needs to be personally accountable although investigations are being done then a STFU is in order.
You are looking like an illogical zealot right now.
Damn man, get you head out of the right-wing websites, news channels, chat-rooms, and "friendly" e-mails.
If an investigation is going on, let it go on. Come on man. As a fellow American, I am worried about you. :(
What do you find so objectionable about this?
QUOTE-j2k4
Principle aside, Biggles-to whom is the ultimate authority-for that is what the U.N. is held by most of you to be-accountable?
Okay.
You guys win.
The United Nations is a paragon of international altruism; indeed, an example we should all aspire to, and anybody questioning it's actions or accountability should be hauled before the International Criminal Court for a proper reckoning.
Long live the U.N.!
Biggles
03-06-2005, 03:36 PM
The United Nations is a paragon of international altruism; indeed, an example we should all aspire to, and anybody questioning it's actions or accountability should be hauled before the International Criminal Court for a proper reckoning.
Long live the U.N.!
:dry: I think you overshot the runway I was hoping to land at.
:lol:
Busyman
03-07-2005, 01:42 AM
What do you find so objectionable about this?
It's quite simple j..... (I like to boil things down to their simplest elements).....
I don't like Bush as a President.
I liken this UN scandal to Abu Gharib (which had photographic evidence btw).
I don't even think Bush should be held accountable so how the fuck am I going to hold Kofi accountable for rogue behavior.
If Kofi is shown to be involved or knowingly hiding shit then that's different.
Other than that wtf do YOU want? Are you yelling loudly but really nothing to say but...."he should be held accountable"???...Do you want him tried for war crimes?
WTF DO YOU WANT?
Ah-but you are too late, my friend.
I have become the U.N.'s biggest fan and supporter.
I am planning a one-man march on the White House to get Bush to donate the entire U.S. GNP to a blind trust for the U.N.'s exclusive use, and also get him to sign the Kyoto Treaty.
That should do for a start.
vidcc
03-07-2005, 03:13 AM
I am planning a one-man march on the White House to get Bush to donate the entire U.S. GNP to a blind trust for the U.N.'s exclusive use
you want to bankrupt the UN :ohmy:
and also get him to sign the Kyoto Treaty.
I would like that. Even if global warming isn't what scientist make it out to be.
Busyman
03-07-2005, 03:34 AM
Ah-but you are too late, my friend.
I have become the U.N.'s biggest fan and supporter.
I am planning a one-man march on the White House to get Bush to donate the entire U.S. GNP to a blind trust for the U.N.'s exclusive use, and also get him to sign the Kyoto Treaty.
That should do for a start.
Well...too bad I'm not one for much bullshit talk, parables, or ka-ka.
Fuck the UN. I'm talking direct logic here.
Use logic or STFU!!!
Biggles
03-07-2005, 08:19 PM
Ah-but you are too late, my friend.
I have become the U.N.'s biggest fan and supporter.
I am planning a one-man march on the White House to get Bush to donate the entire U.S. GNP to a blind trust for the U.N.'s exclusive use, and also get him to sign the Kyoto Treaty.
That should do for a start.
:dry: Sheesh! Converts are always so zealous.
:lol:
bigboab
03-07-2005, 09:06 PM
Ah-but you are too late, my friend.
I have become the U.N.'s biggest fan and supporter.
I am planning a one-man march on the White House to get Bush to donate the entire U.S. GNP to a blind trust for the U.N.'s exclusive use, and also get him to sign the Kyoto Treaty.
That should do for a start.
A couple of paracetamol and a wee dram should aid your recovery. :whistling
A couple of paracetamol and a wee dram should aid your recovery. :whistling
Not interested, Boab.
BTW-Congratulations on your 5000th; a milestone of significance for one who spends significant time in the Drawing Room.
I doubt I'll ever get there (again). :)
vidcc
03-08-2005, 03:15 AM
j2
I do get what you are on about even with my wondering just what it is you think the UN is not doing that it should be.
However a hypothetical question:
The UN sends "peacekeepers/aid workers" into a trouble hotspot. These UN operatives consist of British, french and American soldiers.
just for this example one night a group of American troops indulge in the activities highlighted in the original post.
Who is responsible...Annan? Bush? or both?
Busyman
03-08-2005, 04:48 AM
j2
I do get what you are on about even with my wondering just what it is you think the UN is not doing that it should be.
However a hypothetical question:
The UN sends "peacekeepers/aid workers" into a trouble hotspot. These UN operatives consist of British, french and American soldiers.
just for this example one night a group of American troops indulge in the activities highlighted in the original post.
Who is responsible...Annan? Bush? or both?
The UN is always a "sticky" group when it comes to accountabilty.
Are the donor countries at fault or the UN?
If it's the UN then it's leader needs to take action.
If it's the donor country then it's leader.....
I asked the same question with no one giving answers......... :whistling
Last answer, so file this one away.
In the scenario you describe, vid, I would say the U.S. personnel should be hauled before your I.C.C., and dealt with summarily and according to international dictates; just as with those who enter our armed services, you pays your pesos, and you takes your choice.
If U.S. personnel commit an offense under the flag of the U.N., they are subject to the U.N.'s justice.
Annan, of course, should have something more to say than, "While I regret the actions of the few, I am not responsible."
Your scenario overlooks the repetitive and endemic nature of the offenses committed over the tenure of Annan's reign, which I feel is an important aspect of the current situation, but, there you are.
vidcc
03-08-2005, 09:43 PM
Ok I know you said last answer.
I am glad that you feel the international criminal court should be utilised for such things (even if you have little faith in it before it has had time to be tested). Of course this does raise a problem with the fact that we have not signed up to it which is why I specifically used the usa as the example...that and it hits directly at home.
I wonder what the reaction would be if the ICC actually did try to prosecute American soldiers
Not a supporting reaction I fear
Busyman
03-08-2005, 09:47 PM
Last answer, so file this one away.
In the scenario you describe, vid, I would say the U.S. personnel should be hauled before your I.C.C., and dealt with summarily and according to international dictates; just as with those who enter our armed services, you pays your pesos, and you takes your choice.
If U.S. personnel commit an offense under the flag of the U.N., they are subject to the U.N.'s justice.
Annan, of course, should have something more to say than, "While I regret the actions of the few, I am not responsible."
Your scenario overlooks the repetitive and endemic nature of the offenses committed over the tenure of Annan's reign, which I feel is an important aspect of the current situation, but, there you are.
Good answer j2. Good answer. ;)
Rat Faced
03-12-2005, 07:28 PM
I have found video of U.N. personnel with these local women, showing some of the U.N. higher-ups squiring the women around in plainly labeled U.N. vehicles; this video was apparently taken after the U.N. issued their non-fraternization order.
My problem is one of computor literacy; I can't figure out how to link to it as it is property of FOXNEWS.
I will, nonetheless, endeavor to persevere-if I manage to do it, you will see it.
I have seen video evidence of US soldiers shooting unarmed men..
Does this mean Bush hasnt got a big enough stick and should go?
Rat Faced
03-12-2005, 07:34 PM
Last answer, so file this one away.
In the scenario you describe, vid, I would say the U.S. personnel should be hauled before your I.C.C., and dealt with summarily and according to international dictates; just as with those who enter our armed services, you pays your pesos, and you takes your choice.
If U.S. personnel commit an offense under the flag of the U.N., they are subject to the U.N.'s justice.
Annan, of course, should have something more to say than, "While I regret the actions of the few, I am not responsible."
Your scenario overlooks the repetitive and endemic nature of the offenses committed over the tenure of Annan's reign, which I feel is an important aspect of the current situation, but, there you are.
I should read a whole thread before quoting and posting :unsure:
Good answer... except that USA havent signed up to the ICC, as has been pointed out.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.