Another U.N. story not getting any media or forum play....

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 Jordan’s 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:

so what is it you want from him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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...

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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

Quote:

---

head of the organization which purports to be the international arbiter of such things

---

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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. :(

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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.!

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

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). :)

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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.