| Submit your comments on this article | |
| International-UN-NGOs | |
| U.N. Hopes U.S. Won't Pull Peace Forces | |
| 2004-06-26 | |
Secretary-General Kofi Annan says he hopes the United States will not withdraw from peacekeeping operations after its failure to win an exemption from international prosecution for war crimes. The United States abandoned the effort Wednesday after Annan urged the Security Council not to go along. It was a major retreat for Washington in its fight against the International Criminal Court and a rare intervention by the U.N. chief. "I think the outcome was a good one for the council, and I think also for the Americans," Annan told a news conference on Friday. The secretary-general had raised "serious doubts" about the legality of an exemption and warned against dividing the Security Council. He had said a new exemption "would be a very unfortunate signal to send at any time — but particularly at this time." Washington argues that the court could be used for frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions of American troops. When the court was formally established on July 1, 2002, the United States threatened to end its involvement in far-flung peacekeeping operations established or authorized by the United Nations if it didn't get an exemption for American peacekeepers.
| |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #25 I think Dick Cheney has the correct response for Annan, the one he gave to Leaky. |
| Posted by: Capt America 2004-06-26 9:31:22 PM |
| #24 Jeeezus, who cares. We still have 100 land based exemptions in the Dakotas. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-06-26 8:34:24 PM |
| #23 Have UN peacekeepers ever actually kept the peace? Anon5405 No, but they spend lots of money on drugs, child prostitutes and souvenirs. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2004-06-26 6:04:44 PM |
| #22 Have UN peacekeepers ever actually kept the peace? |
| Posted by: Anonymous5405 2004-06-26 5:38:08 PM |
| #21 To address some issues w/my proposal(not that is has a chance of happening} 1)Gives US graceful exit from UN peacekeeping 2)US will be doing most of funding,so US approval needed for how many train and who trains them.(Personally,I see this as something France and EU should jump all over,w/training centers in former US bases in Germany.In fact,they should have proposed something like this a decade ago.) 3)Peacekeeper training is for infantry/MP types.Having 10,000,20,000,or even 100,000 decently trained infantry w/no armor support,no tactical air and no way to get anywhere w/out US airlift is not that threatening to me.(Not to be too barbaric,but having UN HQ in NYC does give US hostage leverage over UN forces leadership.) 4)With no US troops on ground,no US media,no pressure for more money to UN.In time,less and less public support for funding UN,causing it to scale back or demand more money from Europe,eroding support there. 5)UN blaming problems on its troops/no political will.Actually,the UN never blames anyone but the US,any problems of its own it covers up.The lack of political will is what will keep it from sending peacekeepers to made-up crisis areas.When the UN leadership on ground gets attacked they pull out. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2004-06-26 4:44:04 PM |
| #20 Still, my take is to pull the troops from all peacekeeping missions absent specific congressional authorization. Political action has already been taken on this front via the American Servicemember's Protection Act of 2002 but it turned out completely opposite to what you're suggesting: Congress made it illegal for US troops to take part in UN peacekeeping operations without either: 1) an explicit waiver of the law and declaration by the president that US national security demands our presence, or 2) exemption from ICC prosecution for US troops on said operation. If Bush plays this right, it could be a *huge* victory for him in US public opinion. Imagine a forthcoming national address, "Ladies and gentlemen today it is with great regret that I have suspended all US military participation in UN peacekeeping missions. We know their goals are noble and their causes just, but the UN has demanded that our men and women in uniform be placed at the mercy of a politically motivated court to which our great nation is not a party. We are not a party to this court because it does not guarantee even the most basic and fundamental rights embodied in our own Constitution and we are therefore prohibited from into a treaty with it. Further, I will not subject American men and women who have freely volunteered to defend our nation to the inevitable politically motivated prosecutions they would suffer should we continue to send them off to defend lands and peoples other than our own under the auspices of the United Nations. My commitment to freedom and democracy is as strong as ever but it is apparant that we must now pursue these ends through free and democratic institutions." |
| Posted by: AzCat 2004-06-26 4:23:16 PM |
| #19 Gee, do ya' think my patience with this crap has run a little thin? I can see light through it, Barbara. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-06-26 3:39:34 PM |
#18 the problem with the UN training peacekeepers is that the way the organization is structured now, the training would probably be done by al QuaedaNot necessarily a bad thing, RWV. Most of the ongoing problems in the world involve moslems anyway. While they're busy training the "peacekeepers," we can arm any non-moslems who are being attacked by moslems and let them establish their own peace. If it's moslem against moslem that needs to be peace-kept, let Al-Q have at it. Gee, do ya' think my patience with this crap has run a little thin? |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2004-06-26 3:32:26 PM |
| #17 Whatever purpose the UN served ended when the Berlin Wall collapsed and the Soviet Empire imploded. Like Al Gore, its become an embarassment that many wish would just go away. Jen, maybe we can get the UN space in the old League of Nations buildings in Geneva. Just think what the impact on NYC's budget would be were the UN staff and delegates forced to pay their outstanding parking tickets. Stephen, the problem with the UN training peacekeepers is that the way the organization is structured now, the training would probably be done by al Quaeda. |
| Posted by: RWV 2004-06-26 3:24:01 PM |
| #16 Secretary-General Kofi Annan says he hopes the United States will not withdraw from peacekeeping operations after its failure to win an exemption from international prosecution for war crimes. Yeah, and hillbillies want to called "sons of the soil." It's the old "be very careful what you wish for" routine all over again. Roosevelt Roads springs to mind. Still, my take is to pull the troops from all peacekeeping missions absent specific congressional authorization. US Soldiers may participate in many or even all peacekeeping missions, but solely under US Command...after congress gives its blessing. I realize that congress will argue and blather and snarl at having to actually take some responsibility, responsibility that should be theirs in the first instance. It it thought and hoped that over time that congress will change and actually become an institution that is capable of making decisions and standing by them. Works for me, Traveller, but you're expecting a lot from American politicians. They might give themselves a collective aneurysm trying to be that logical. 1st qualification for memebership: a freely elected representative government. I agree, Old Spook. Elected representation and democracy need to be regarded as fundamental human rights. Nothing less will do. That the UN gives every penny-ante tyrant say-so over the workings of superpowers is second only in ridiculousness to Kofi Annan himself. That walking pile of excrement should do only one thing, spontaneously combust from a premature entry into the hell he so richly deserves. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-06-26 3:18:11 PM |
| #15 Old Spook, I love it! (Your plan would probably be like UN ExLax and would clean the place out for good, but... I don't want these America-haters on our soil for another minute!) Move the UN to France! And don't hold your breath until we show up...or maybe you should. Get the U.S. out of the UN and the UN out of the U.S. President Bush rope-a-doped them into voting on our immunity and they themselves said "NO." (Kofi urged them not to because our Abu Grab abuse showed we were not to be trusted.) I'm delighted that our troops will no longer be required for missions like Black Hawk Down in Mogadishu where they were ambushed by Al Queda while "peacekeeping." Our troops have other more pressing war business elsewhere anyway in countries where we have bilateral agreements. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-06-26 2:40:22 PM |
| #14 I say its time to close the UN, and establish something that works. Pull our funding, pull our troops, and throw them out of the US. Use the UN buildings for a new UN, one that excludes tinpot dictators and keeps insanities like having Iran head up the nuclear non-proliferation comitee and N Korea in charge of human rights. 1st qualification for memebership: a freely elected representative government. 2nd qualification: your ability to vote is related to the troops you deploy and the money you contribute. The more of those you have as a percentage of the total, the more your vote counts. If you get up over 25%, you get a veto. You get over 33%, you get to override vetoes. That rules out the crap hole countries from having a say over policy, and also excludes the kleptocracies of the middle east, asia and African voting themselves "Oil for food". And initially, the voting ability being related to the troops provided and the funding given - That shuts down France, RUssia and Germany in a hurry. Basically, if you want to have a voice, you have to either carry the load or pay your way. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-06-26 2:32:43 PM |
| #13 There is certainly potential for a sweet outcome here. Ed's got it right. I think Stephen's got a good approach, but I'd opt to twist the knife gently in the statement we make, documenting how critical US blood and treasure have been to not just "peace-keeping" (as others have noted, rarely does this accurately describe the operation or its effects) but humanitarian relief. As we're fairly busy using our military to defend civilization and ourselves at the moment, we appreciate the rest of the planet stepping up to its responsibilities on "peace-keeping". If they don't -- OK. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2004-06-26 2:28:47 PM |
| #12 This is a nice idea Stephen, well written and well thought out...and yet, I see two problems. 1. The problem with UN troops isn't that they are untrained, (though factually you may be correct), but rather there is no political will in backing them in doing what soldiers do. If anything goes even slightly wrong, various UN types say...see, it's the soldiers. Under such circumstances, of course they do a bad job regardless of training. 2. A well armed, well equiped, well motivated and well trained UN Army? No, I'm sorry, a lefty I may be, but this is something even beyond the fringes even for me. A well trained UN Army is an idea that you may want to re-think. Best Wishes & Respectfully Yours, |
| Posted by: Traveller 2004-06-26 2:25:10 PM |
| #11 AP and other news organizations are twisting themselves into a pretzel trying to convince us that this a "failure" and a Bad Thing for the US. All it means is that, in future, we will be much more hesitant to do the UN's peacekeeping bidding and will have every reason to be against future missions. There can be no doubt among thinking humans that any attempt to prosecute Americans for "war crimes" willbe political in nature, especially since no effort whatsoever has EVER been made to prosecute anyone else on earth for war crimes by the UN. (Milosevic is the only exception I can think of, and he beat the charges anyway) No, this is a GOOD THING. Kaffir Anus knows his UN fucked up this time. |
| Posted by: Chris W. 2004-06-26 2:22:02 PM |
| #10 To just stop paying for peacekeepers leaves US looking like bad guy(I know going to happen anyway,but let's not give 'em ammo too)and easy scapegoat for UN inaction-"if the US hadn't stopped funding we would have stopped the atrocoties in East BumF***."The smart way to do it,as well as stick in the knife and twist it a little,is to have State Dept. release statement that goes something like this: "The United States firmly believes that the intentions of the UN are praiseworthy.However we have to observe that the peacekeepers deployed often fail miserably at their job.This is because the bulk of troops provided to the UN are neither well-trained,nor well-disciplined.Using these ill-trained troops has led to countless deaths and untold misery in Rwanda,Bosnia,(list of countries).Therefore,in the interests of humanity,the United States will no longer fund peacekeeping missions until such time as the UN sets up a training center for peacekeeping forces and only sends graduates of such training into the field." To answer your question,yes the US is amenable to funding such training.No,the US does not care who does the training,nor where it is conducted,other than it be done by qualified personnel.I don't believe that at this time American troops would be sent to such a school,so yes,no US troops would be assigned to UN peacekeeping missions.We rightly agree that the world holds US troops to a high standard,why shouldn't the world expect the same from UN peacekeepers?No further questions,thank-you for your time. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2004-06-26 2:13:06 PM |
| #9 Fred has it right, but interestingly, so does Ed. I've read Ed's post maybe half dozen times, just working it through my mind. I'm not sure that I can do better than this. Still, my take is to pull the troops from all peacekeeping missions absent specific congressional authorization. US Soldiers may participate in many or even all peacekeeping missions, but solely under US Command...after congress gives its blessing. I realize that congress will argue and blather and snarl at having to actually take some responsibility, responsibility that should be theirs in the first instance. It it thought and hoped that over time that congress will change and actually become an institution that is capable of making decisions and standing by them. If Congress wants to send troops to Liberia, then well and fine. If they want it done quickly, that's okay also, get a Quorum, take a vote, authorize the funding, and get it done. Otherwise zilch. Just another thought from the Left. Best Wishes, |
| Posted by: Traveller 2004-06-26 2:09:20 PM |
| #8 I agree with Barbara. Let's face it, peacekeepers just separate the sides after most of the killing, pillaging and raping has been done. Then it starts again after each side has time to rest and rearm. Most UN peacekeepers don't give a damn what happens in country. Most of them are used as rent-a-soldier for their governments to feed from the UN trough. Pull all US troops and budget from the UN. The US pays for 1/3 of the peacekeeping budget ($2.68 billion for 2004, UN wants $5 billion next year, US+Japan pays 50%). Take that money and decide if it is worth arming, training and advising one side that can bring about a decent government. In the end, it will kill fewer people and bring better government than the current system. |
| Posted by: ed 2004-06-26 1:06:54 PM |
| #7 It's time to pull back our far-flung forces and redeploy them to places that matter to US interests. George Bush has been quietly doing that for the last four years, although the pace has recently accelerated. More importantly, we should stop paying for the UN "peacekeepers" that other nations deploy. Without US funding and logistics support, the various and sundry UN operations would simply cease to exist and the forces assigned to them would have to beg, borrow, or steal the money to buy a ticket home. If the UN secretariat, the EU, and the assorted Lilliputians that constitute the chorus in the UN want to continue to disparage America and if they think they have the moral right to try US forces for "war crimes", then it's time for us to stop funding and supporting their criticism and "operations". It's time for Atlas to shrug. |
| Posted by: RWV 2004-06-26 1:04:05 PM |
| #6 Yes the President falls into that chain of command. All the lefties in the world are lining up now to sue Pvt Smith, etc, President Bush. If I were Bush, ALL of our peacekeeping oprerations woud cease. After a week they would BEG us to return. This UN tribunal shit is nothing more than an extention of EU anti-America shit and we should just flush it. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2004-06-26 12:35:39 PM |
| #5 Kofi shoulda thought through the ramifications of his rhetoric and stunt. Now, how's Volker doing? We can use the money we save on peacekeeping troops to pay for an increased investigative staff on Kofi's Oil-For-Dictator's-Palaces-and-their-corrupt-enablers deals |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-06-26 11:07:43 AM |
| #4 Is there a bigger peace of human excrement in the civilized world then Kofi Annan? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2004-06-26 11:02:51 AM |
| #3 Bush should send Cheney to do a photo op with Kofi in the Security Council chamber. |
| Posted by: Mr. Davis 2004-06-26 10:53:00 AM |
| #2 Who gives a flying fuck what Coffee "hopes"? He hopes he won't get caught with his hands in the cookie jar, too. PULL THE TROOPS. The "peacekeeping" operations don't keep peace, anyway - unless the Americans or Brits or Aussies are in charge. Let the UN, Euros, and the rest of the world take some responsibility. Or stew in their own As for "peacekeeping," arm the side that's being attacked (unless it's Islamists - but then, they'll already be armed) and let people take care of the peace themselves. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2004-06-26 10:46:18 AM |
| #1 Wouldn't the President, as commander-in-chief, be part of the 'troops' subject to prosecution ? |
| Posted by: Crikey 2004-06-26 10:45:47 AM |