UN chief warns of Iraq civil war

#1
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has warned that Iraq is in danger of sliding into "full-scale civil war".
He called for urgent action from Iraqi leaders and the international community to bring Iraq back from the brink.

Mr Annan was addressing a meeting at UN headquarters in New York attended by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

He spoke as world leaders arrived in New York for the UN General Assembly, which convenes on Tuesday.

Monday saw more than 50 people die in Iraq in bomb attacks, shootings, and kidnap killings.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5358388.stm

How can we ever hope to help people that won't help themselves Mr. Annan?
 
#2
Perhaps we should use flowers or puppies? What will the ever effective UN, who stood against the Anfal genocide, Rwanda, and currently Darfur do to end the violence?
 
#3
Chief_Joseph said:
Perhaps we should use flowers or puppies? What will the ever effective UN, who stood against the Anfal genocide, Rwanda, and currently Darfur do to end the violence?
Really don't know why I am defending the UN but the UN is only as effective as its members want it to be!
 
#4
I know what your saying, but you know what I'm saying to. Kofi Anan has not given a satisfactory explanation for this:
ex-General Roméo Dallaire who was force commander of the UNAMIR claims that Annan has been overly passive in his response to the 1994 Tutsi genocide in Rwanda. Gen. Dallaire explicitly stated that the then Undersecretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations held back UN troops from intervening to settle the conflict and from providing more logistic and material support. For example, he claimed that Annan failed to provide any responses to Dallaire's repeated faxes asking him for access to a weapons depository, something that could have helped defend the Tutsis.
While overly zealous and reckless use of force causes problems, equal problems have been caused by the dismissal of a military solution. Diplomacy alone can work in preventing violence, but rarely in stopping it.
 
#5
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has warned that Iraq is in danger of sliding into "full-scale civil war
And just what the feck is currently going on then?

Whilst I think there is a role for the UN it really has to grow some fair sized balls to operate in this day and age. Will that ever really happen?
 
#6
Chief_Joseph said:
I know what your saying, but you know what I'm saying to. Kofi Anan has not given a satisfactory explanation for this:
ex-General Roméo Dallaire who was force commander of the UNAMIR claims that Annan has been overly passive in his response to the 1994 Tutsi genocide in Rwanda. Gen. Dallaire explicitly stated that the then Undersecretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations held back UN troops from intervening to settle the conflict and from providing more logistic and material support. For example, he claimed that Annan failed to provide any responses to Dallaire's repeated faxes asking him for access to a weapons depository, something that could have helped defend the Tutsis.
While overly zealous and reckless use of force causes problems, equal problems have been caused by the dismissal of a military solution. Diplomacy alone can work in preventing violence, but rarely in stopping it.
Who provides the troops?
 
#7
castlereagh said:
Who provides the troops?
Precisely.

The UN is not some extra-governmental body that operates independently. It is made up of the representatives of the governments of the world’s nations. It can only do what those governments allow it to do.

If those governments are not willing to commit their armed forces to deal with a particular situation, or are not willing to allow them to operate under robust rules of engagement, there is nothing the UN can do.

If there is criticism to be made – and there is plenty of cause for criticism – it should not be directed at the UN “needing to grow balls” but at the national governments that are emasculating the UN.
 
#8
Let me enlarge on my earlier comment.

By suggesting that the UN 'grow some balls' I'm implicating the member countries to mandate it accordingly. Why not have a permanent cadre of UN troops on call? It appears to take far too long for any response from the UN.

By the time they do respond the situation has usually got so bad it's almost impossible for them to achieve anything.

If the UN is to survive I think it has to radically rethink how it operates.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top