Congo being ignored

“1-No-one wants us in Iraq, yet they seem to want us to solve other country’s issues? Can you guys pick a side please? If it is such an issue, why hasn’t anyone else stepped up to fix it? “

The US decided on its own to go in and fix a problem that has been ongoing for the last 20-30 years.
No one made them.
There was no great call from the Iraqi people themselves… just a few exiles.
The last time they were told to rise up they were let down which largely explains why they didn’t welcome US troops with flowers and bread on the border.
Several countries chose to go with them.
And together they went in and took control of Iraqs oil… because it was the right thing to do… for Iraq, for the Iraqi people and most importantly for the US economy.

The US took on the role of righter of wrongs in an international context… it even ignored the UN to do it.

Now there is another wrong that it could potentially make right.
It will not of course… because it is not in its direct interests to do so… congo has no oil and has already been plundered of most of its resources by Belgium.

The fact that a country of 20 million people is in complete disarray through the actions of the US has tied up both the time and resources of the UN for more than a year. The US has pushed the topic of Iraq to the top of the list at every forum it has attended with the purpose of getting backing to ensure the continued performance of its economy.

Who has failed Congo? Well obviously Congo itself first of all, probably Belgium second and the UN and the US third… normally the US shouldn’t even be on the list but if you self appoint yourself the worlds policeman then this is the sort of things you should be involving yourself with.

“2-What does a fence by Mexico have to do with poor black people in Africa?”

Both show US attitudes to poor people… build a wall and pretend they aren’t there… if the climb the wall… shoot ’em or round them up and send them back home.

“Hold on, but isn’t the UN the one organization created for this exact purpose? “

The UN was not designed to prevent war. It was an international forum to enable dialog to discuss issues. If the two sides just want to fight or it is an internal issue (ie Northern Ireland for Britain or Chechnia for Russia) then the UN can do little.

“Unlike, let’s say, Europe for instance? And what has YOUR government, Garry, done about the situation in the Congo?”

Listening to the rhetoric from the white house recently you’d think they had decided to use their enormous economic and military power to help correct the problems of the world… I think that deserves a little criticism from me.
I quite agree with your comment about Europe… they have had their moral wars in the recent past too and could equally do with some criticism, though I don’t understand how the New Zealand government can be criticised. We have no power to do anything, so our lack of action is hardly surprising. We are a little fish… this was brought home many times by the actions of our allies like Britain, France, and the US.

“Isn’t that kind of dangerous? I mean sending
young woman to that crazy country as peace
keepers.”

It’s alright Jayzee… they give them guns before they go…

Ink

I really forgot what is like to use 56k modem
already. :p I’ll keep that in mind the next time
posting pics. 🙂

“Isn’t that kind of dangerous? I mean sending
young woman to that crazy country as peace
keepers.”

Opening up a whole new kettle of fish there… not sure this is really the thread for that kind of question.

Also; guys, its the easiest thing in the world to reduce the size of a JPG, could you please think of those of us with slow connections and tiny monitors when posting huge big pics like that – thanks.

They are sending some chicks, too.

Isn’t that kind of dangerous? I mean sending
young woman to that crazy country as peace
keepers.

Chinese Peacekeeping Mission Heads for Congo

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200301/25/eng20030125_110730.shtml

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200301/24/images/0123_226s.jpg

Not nearly enough, but better then nothing.

Skythe,

“Hold on, but isn’t the UN the one organization created for this exact purpose? However we dislike the situation, no nation on this planet is actually obliged to care about the Congo. What’s the point of the UN however, if it turns a blind eye as well?”

I’d like to point out a common mis-comprehension regarding the UN. While the UN is the backbone of international law and order it isn’t a body which can enforce this without the help of the world’s big/rich powers. The UN in fact initiated an initiative to send a peacekeeping force to the Congo and asked for a certain amount of funds to support this force. It asked the US for $100,000 with the idea that if the US (the world’s ‘self-proclaimed policeman’ – contradiction in terms don’t you think?) would support such an initiative the rest of the world would be more likely to follow. The Clinton administration refused to allow funding after which Britain and France also withdrew their support. The programme was dropped.

Sean,

“1-No-one wants us in Iraq, yet they seem to want us to solve other country’s issues? Can you guys pick a side please? If it is such an issue, why hasn’t anyone else stepped up to fix it?”

The problem we have with the US invasion of Iraq and it’s failure to intervene in other conflicts is this:
If you proclaim yourself to be the world’s policeman and use this to justify your actions (i.e. Iraq) you have to behave like a policeman (i.e. within the rule of the law).
I for one would be pretty demoralised by a police force which 1, proclaims itself and isn’t chosen by the people who it is protecting, 2, polices only the parts of town which have rich people in and from which it gets its funding, 3, turns a blind eye to crimes commited by its friends, 4, turns a blind eye to crimes commited in the parts of town where, even though it would be easy to police, it has no self interest, 5, has no form of internal regulation and doesn’t punish its own staff when they blatently commit crimes, 6, obviously disregards the laws of the land (in this case the world) in order to chase down the criminals it thinks deserve punishment, 7, acts on circumstantial evidence and uses more than reasonable force, 8, holds, kills and possibly torures people without a trial.
I think if the police in your town did even one of the above things there’d be a public outcry – there would where I live.

Gefore, African Unity = Black Leaders are Gods who must be Saved, Black People are scum to be trod on

At least that is the Mbeki/Mugabe/Obasanjo interpretation.

You’re right Skythe, it was Rwanda. My mistake.
Keltic is right, both the US and the EU are responsible.

However, it’s not right to blame the west for everything. It are the leaders of those regimes in Africa who are most of all responsible.

What about this new organisation called the AU (African Union)? They could have an important role in a solution for this war, they could provide peacekeepers from other African nations like Nigeria or South Africa. However, I doubt that this AU will be very succesful, I already took 50 years to create the EU as it is today and still it doesn’t function.

Originally posted by SOC
1-No-one wants us in Iraq, yet they seem to want us to solve other country’s issues? Can you guys pick a side please? If it is such an issue, why hasn’t anyone else stepped up to fix it?

2-What does a fence by Mexico have to do with poor black people in Africa?

Excellent post, Sauron.

The US should intervine in conflicts and war when asked by the UN. I am against the unilateral approach, created by the current US advisors, which says….we are the world, we do whatever we feel like. In the First Gulf War there was a wide consensus and Security Council resolution. In the Tutsis and Hutus issue I blame the whole world for ignoring it and not doing it. The EU and the US should share their responsibility.

Originally posted by Geforce
9 years ago 10 belgian blue berets were killed in combat in Congo.

I believe you mean the 10 killed in Rwanda, Geforce, following which the bulk of UN “peacekeeping” forces were pulled out, followed by the subsequent slaughter of nearly half a million people.

Originally posted by GarryB
The US takes the moral high ground and invades a country to save its people from a brutal dictator. Of course to invade it makes a mockery of an organisation called the UN and criticises that organisation as being without credibility.

As Rwanda showed, the UN is quite capable of making a mockery of itself. It’s not the US which makes the UN lack credibility, it is the UN which makes a mockery of the same values it claims to uphold, while doing nothing about them in practice.

Now you are suggesting that because the UN doesn’t do anything for the people of the Congo then it is the UNs fault?

Hold on, but isn’t the UN the one organization created for this exact purpose? However we dislike the situation, no nation on this planet is actually obliged to care about the Congo. What’s the point of the UN however, if it turns a blind eye as well?

Just because its attention is focused on the plight of the 20 million people in Iraq now that looting has become a sport and the US doesn’t have enough troops there to protect the innocent people they went to save… and the oil at the same time… so it has chosen to save the oil.

The civil war in Congo has been going on for years. One could actually trace back to the 1960s and Congo’s indepedence from Belgium. Where’s the UN been all this time?

Or is it because the US doesn’t care about poor Black people.

Unlike, let’s say, Europe for instance? And what has YOUR government, Garry, done about the situation in the Congo?

Well, 3.5 million killed in a civil war. The most bloody since WWII. We hardly hear anything about it in the news, a “fait-divers” after Iraq.

Belgium is too small to do anything about it, however, and this is our fault, we could have brought into attention with our EU-partners. If our PM and minister of foreign affairs would have cared a bit more about Congo than the coming elections (where Iraq is very popular), we could already have a peacekeeping force in Congo, maybe one under EU-flag.

Belgium still sends money and aid packages, apart from the aid the EU is providing. Be we all know where this money is going to. Our politicians think it will help if we send money and say “well Sorry people, we’ve done some really bad things in the past. Now les us enjoy this meal and then head back to Brussels in our brand new Airbus.

9 years ago 10 belgian blue berets were killed in combat in Congo. The public is very sceptic about sending paracommando’s back to Africa, however, I think as we (our King Leopold II)exploited the country for more than a hundred years, we had the responsability to go there and try to solve the problems. Under the Belgian presidency, the EU tried to do something about it, but it didn’t last for long, and now all diplomacy lays in the hands of SA president Mbeki.

Originally posted by GarryB

I thought the US was the worlds policeman. It takes its decisions without consulting the UNSC or even including it when it knows the required vote won’t go its way.
It can fight ten wars at once and win them all, it is the strongest and most powerful nation in the world… blah blah blah.

Or is it because the US doesn’t care about poor Black people.

(explains the 12m high electric fence over the Mexican border)

1-No-one wants us in Iraq, yet they seem to want us to solve other country’s issues? Can you guys pick a side please? If it is such an issue, why hasn’t anyone else stepped up to fix it?

2-What does a fence by Mexico have to do with poor black people in Africa?

Excellent post, Sauron.

And over last few years over 1.5 million have died in Congo.

very well said Sauran.

“I don’t know why you bother, Sauron, they’re going to blame the US for this anyway.”

Hahahaha… perhaps it deserves some blame?

The US takes the moral high ground and invades a country to save its people from a brutal dictator. Of course to invade it makes a mockery of an organisation called the UN and criticises that organisation as being without credibility.

Now you are suggesting that because the UN doesn’t do anything for the people of the Congo then it is the UNs fault?

Just because its attention is focused on the plight of the 20 million people in Iraq now that looting has become a sport and the US doesn’t have enough troops there to protect the innocent people they went to save… and the oil at the same time… so it has chosen to save the oil.

I thought the US was the worlds policeman. It takes its decisions without consulting the UNSC or even including it when it knows the required vote won’t go its way.
It can fight ten wars at once and win them all, it is the strongest and most powerful nation in the world… blah blah blah.

No, policing the world has been turned back to the UN… why not enough oil in Africa?

Or is it because the US doesn’t care about poor Black people.

(explains the 12m high electric fence over the Mexican border)

I don’t blame the US, but I do blame the UN.

There’s a Discovery programme on tomorrow about the Rwanda genocide, featuring an interview with the commander of the UN peacekeepers there. Let’s see how that particular debacle is explained away!

Good one Sauron!

Also, heard today that some UN workers are suggesting that Zimbabwean, Ugandan or Zambian forces had used chemical weapons in attacks against civilians.

Nobody cares, only africans there and no petrol. If the Tutsis massacres were largerly ignored by everyone (both Europe and the US) why now?. Hundreds of regional conflicts are forgotten by all of us.

I don’t know why you bother, Sauron, they’re going to blame the US for this anyway.

Very neatly pointed out Sauron