Un dropping ball in congo?

[Guest]

4. I'm not interested in humanitarian efforts. That is for the Peace Corps, Red Cross, and State Department. I'm a soldier, my job is to fight wars not hand out food. It's harsh, but it's the truth. I don't want your job.

So because your immense need for action and fighting, you joined the National Guard? 

Anyway, welcome back

[Longinius 1]

"1. I do not believe in world government, which the UN is a precursor of."

Its evident that there is a need for a worldwide organisation willing to look after the poor and the exposed. The US isnt gonna do it, Sweden isnt gonna do it, UK isnt... the list goes on.

"2. The UN takes too long to decide what to do due to internal bickering."

And since the US is a part of the UN they are also to blame for this. Yes, the UN is flawed. Thats no secret. That doesnt mean its not needed though.

"3. With friends like you, who needs enemies? The General Assembly dislikes the U.S. and Israel for the most part. Why should I like the UN?"

Its not strange that Israel isnt the most appretiated state in the world, considering the ongoing situation.

"4. I'm not interested in humanitarian efforts. That is for the Peace Corps, Red Cross, and State Department. I'm a soldier, my job is to fight wars not hand out food. It's harsh, but it's the truth. I don't want your job."

Yeah, damn. It would be a sad world if we didnt have any soldiers, and if there were no wars!

"5. If the UN doesn't exist anymore, another organization will take it's place. Perhaps one more focused on a mission than on squabbling over political ideologies. Something decentalized and less powerful perhaps."

1. What does this matter, since you didnt like world governments?

2. Would you think it was OK if the US took over instead?

[Gollum1 0]

2. The UN takes too long to decide what to do due to internal bickering.

Yeah, I think solving hundreds of armed conflicts, providing food and shelter to millions, building bridges between nations and preventing *GLOBAL HOLOCAUST* is taking WAY too long!

Just dissolve the U.N and let´s nuke ourselves into oblivion, there´s no hope for humanity anyway!

Do you have a better option than the U.N, then?

How are you going to speed things up? Did it occur to you that people often have different opinions and discussion and debate is often considered a *good* thing?

[Major Gripe 0]

I really think that some people on this board suffer from delusions of grandeur and sociopathic disorders.  Do you not think while typing?

Quote[/b] ]Its evident that there is a need for a worldwide organisation willing to look after the poor and the exposed

Do you know anything about the UN? There are a number of organisations that look after humanitarian issues such as

   

- Office of the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)

- Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)

 

- United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)

- United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)

- United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)

- United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

I could go on for pages!! All of these bodies work daily to help the 'poor and exposed' and they all could undoubtedly work more efficiently and with greater impact with better support from the world community, something that will be lacking as long as the UN is erroneously perceived to be ineffective.

[killagee 0]

I'm with the UN all the way.

Yes, it needs to be modified, given the Power of a World Court ( that includes the USA!), Armed better by contributing Nations (Can you imagine the cost benifit of shared Logistic and Support resources?) and given teeth.

This will take time.

Give the UN room to breathe and the Power to take breath away.

I dont know what you guys do (I exclude those of you putting your lives or livelihood on the line) but I give the UN (Well the Unicef part anyway) my $60NZ a month. I dont notice it gone. I am certainly not living comfortably, but I am willing to pay my dues to the UN so that one day I will turn on the TV and the news will say " And in World News today, No Tanks were sold, No shots were fired. No-one starved to death while their neighbours ate 8 times what was necessary. No young girls were raped of their innocence and no 11 year olds bought an AK47 for less than the price of a can of Coke.

In other news today, Lockheed Martin and EADS have teamed up to offer the De-Miliarized EF-2000 Eurofighter to compete against the SAAB JAS-39 Gripen in the Annual How Fast Can We Get There In How Much Style And Pulling How Many G's Competition......."

OK so the Last paragraph is not needed.... But why not eh!

[Longinius 1]

"I could go on for pages!! All of these bodies work daily to help the 'poor and exposed' and they all could undoubtedly work more efficiently and with greater impact with better support from the world community, something that will be lacking as long as the UN is erroneously perceived to be ineffective. "

I responded to a post, saying that the UN wasnt needed. In my response I said that its evident that the UN IS indeed needed.

Then you post a list of UN organisations, telling me how needed they are? I all ready stated that the UN is necessary, but it might be ineffective at some things.

How does that make me a sociopath or ignorant of the UN?

[BronzeEagle 2]

Who's gonna model this crap?

[USSoldier11B 0]

Yes, that got me the expected response. Of course I didn't expect any of you to agree with me because you are all out of your mind left wing. (From a conservative American perspective) In response to all of Mr. UN's arguments. All of your arguments are heresay and have a heavily biased quasi-Warsaw Pact overtones. (i.e. America is still the evil empire and is pushing everyone around) You really think your governments care if the U.S. invades Iraq because of human rights? No, it is because of vested economic interests in that nation. Your leaders are just as corrupt as ours are.

Quote[/b] ]Aha so it´s all the nations who were betrayed by the TBA that are now guilty for Powell´s presentation of faked evidence to start a war. Is this what you are trying to tell me ?

Are you kidding or is this really your twice-checked opinion ?

Umm, the UN General Assembly has been Anti-America/Israel for as long as I can remember. So don't blame it on the Bush Administration.

Quote[/b] ]Yeah, I think solving hundreds of armed conflicts, providing food and shelter to millions, building bridges between nations and preventing *GLOBAL HOLOCAUST* is taking WAY too long!

Just dissolve the U.N and let´s nuke ourselves into oblivion, there´s no hope for humanity anyway!

Do you have a better option than the U.N, then?

How are you going to speed things up? Did it occur to you that people often have different opinions and discussion and debate is often considered a *good* thing?

Classic example of liberal slippery slope rhetoric

Quote[/b] ]Yeah, damn. It would be a sad world if we didnt have any soldiers, and if there were no wars!

Unlike Denoir, I believe in good and evil. There are evil people in the world who can only be dealt with by armed conflict. You Utopians I swear.

Quote[/b] ]2. Would you think it was OK if the US took over instead?

No, contrary to popular European belief, we do not want to take over the world. Pesonally, I wouldn't feel bad if I never had to hear about Europe again. You whine about everything.

Yes the UN does provide some noble services. I'm not talking about the front line UN efforts. When I talk about UN I'm talking about the General Assembly, whos members included criminals and terrorists. Overall, unimaginative cookie-cutter left wing reponses. Denoir was always a challenging debater, you people are no where near par.

[Longinius 1]

"Unlike Denoir, I believe in good and evil. There are evil people in the world who can only be dealt with by armed conflict. You Utopians I swear."

So therefor it would be wrong to not want war, because according to your beliefs there must always be war?

"No, contrary to popular European belief, we do not want to take over the world."

I am quite sure the average person, civilian or military, in Nazi Germany said the same. That there was no goal to take over the world. Well, they said it until they started taking over the world anyway. The American people might not have this goal, I highly doubt they do. Sadly, it isnt the American people that are running America.

"Pesonally, I wouldn't feel bad if I never had to hear about Europe again. You whine about everything."

Yes, unlike America, who just blows everything up instead. Much better solution.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Denoir was always a challenging debater, you people are no where near par.

Well it always depends on the opposite side doesn´t it ?

You basically just post substanceless crap and want to start a good debate with that ?

Quote[/b] ]In response to all of Mr. UN's arguments. All of your arguments are heresay and have a heavily biased quasi-Warsaw Pact overtones.

Aha. Well at least I know what I am talking about. Have you been on missions in several countries or me ?

Don´t come up with persoanl bullshit MR. Great Debate.

[Die Alive 0]

Today's newspaper has an article on weather or not UN soldiers in DR Congo will shoot child soldiers.  The online version may appear later today or tomorrow, stupid newspaper.

Quote[/b] ]

First rule: don't negotiate with child

Stephen Thorne

Canadian Press

OTTAWA- The first rule of survival in the Congolese town of Bunia is: Don't try to negotiate with an 8-year old who's holding an AK-47 assault rifle, says Major Harry Chadwick.

"If there's anybody I'm afraid of, it's the children," said Chadwick, a Canadian army reservist acting as an unarmed UN observer in the war-ravaged African country.  "They lack a basic morality that Canadians, I think, believe exists in everyone.  I'm not so sure that's true anymore.  I think it can be taken out of people."

Speaking yesterday from the Congolese capital of Kinshasa, Chadwick said he was shocked by what he found when he went to Bunia to assess conditions.

The dead included women and children, some decapitated, others with their hearts, livers, and lungs missing.  UN officials are investigating cannibalism claims.  "The reports are too widespread not to be true.

"This war is like an iceberg," said the veteran of four overseas tours. "Ninety percent of it's below the surface."

Many bodies Chadwick saw strewn on the streets of Bunia were half-eaten by dogs.  But Chadwick said what he found most striking as he entered the town on May 13 was the age of the soldiers.

Families had been told they had to provide money, a cow or a son to the cause.  Sons, said Chadwick, are the most dispensable.

On Wednesday, EU ambassadors in Brussels approved a plan to send troops after the UN Security Council authorized a 1400 member force.

[...]

Another piece is titled: Are we going to shoot kids?  There's a militia that is 60% made up of children, In an interview with it's leader, Lubanga, a 42-year old psychology graduate who has his headquarters in a Roman Catholic retreat guarded by child soldiers, insisted that most of his troops are adults.  but he admits there are 10 year olds in his militia, mostly orphans in the militia's care.  He promised to "disarm them shortly."  If the new peacekeepers try to disarm his army, he warned, it "will create an explosion."

Quote[/b] ] When asked whether the new peacekeepers would engage child soldiers in battle, Madnodje Mounoubai, UN spokesperson, replied: "I imagine so.  They're child soldiers, but they're carrying weapons and they are shooting."

-=Die Alive=-

[Balschoiw 0]

The child soldier issue is the one I am most worried about when we go there.

We are currently having brainstormings on how to get tem without having to kill them, but I am afraid a certain percentage will be killed if they resist, wich is very likely.

I don´t know how our troops will be able to handle this, but I have some experience with children in arms and there are always ways to separate them from their guns.

The major problem will be ranged shots. Noone can determine within a few seconds that the shooter is a hidden kid. This can be awfull. I hope we can avoid massive killings amongst teens and kids in arms, but there will be victims if the warloards and militia chiefs send them into battle.

It´s not nice to see what a 40mm does to a kid, but it´s also not nice to see for the other kids and we had good sucess in persuading children to leave their guns with basic things like money,water, food, sweeties, little toys, etc. in other african countries.

Another discussed option is the massive extermination of leaders. For the kids they often represent father figures. They are very dependant on them. So most likely we will go for the leaders and try to avoid casualties amongst the children.

Another issue discussed here is the effect on our own troops if they have to face armed children and maybe injure or kill them on self defense purposes. There is a major psychological effect for the UN soldiers and this can lead to unwanted results and bad situations. I hope our concept will be covering a lot of these issues and provide us with a reasonable plan how to handle such situations.

[FallenPaladin 0]

That are important thoughts, Balschoiw. I`m rejoining the Bundeswehr in August for 12 years as Sergeant-candidate. I know quite a lot about the training you recieve before you go to a mission in a foreign country nowadays, but situations with child-soldiers weren`t taught yet. I can only remember a short movie ("The Sniper", which was shot in the BW training village and dealt with a kid sniper) . Now that the Bundestag has decided that there will be german soldiers in Kongo it would be good to prepare them to what they`ll probably encounter.

[USSoldier11B 0]

Quote[/b] ]You basically just post substanceless crap and want to start a good debate with that ?

Quote[/b] ]Don´t come up with persoanl bullshit MR. Great Debate.

I seem to remember people getting banned around here for saying this kind of stuff. Hmmm....When you state a point, I merely counter it with my own opinion, rather than maliciously attack it with run of the mill ad hominem libel. And the part about personal BS, I'm merely pointing out a fact, the statements you are making are anti-American. I don't go around bashing peoples ethnic backgrounds or beliefs. Take for instance Denoir, someone I disagree with ideologically to a great extent, never-the-less I respect his views because they are logical and well stated. As I said before, since you obviously don't really read my posts because your arrogance doesn't allow it: U.N. missions are generally a good thing. A ground soldier..er..um....peacekeeper like you really has no say so over what happens. My quarrel was never with the work you do, but with the people who tell you to do it. My problem is with the leadership structure. An organization filled people of dubious character.

[FallenPaladin 0]

My problem is with the leadership structure. An organization filled people of dubious character.

I have exactly the same problem with the leadership in the USA. I bet Balschoiw has the same opinion, well, most foreigners have that opinion when it comes to the Bush Administration.

[-TU--33ker 0]

("The Sniper", which was shot in the BW training village and dealt with a kid sniper)

they showed that movie on TV. very disturbing...

I don't want to be a soldier who has to shoot children.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Well i have a fairly low opinion of the higher echelons of The Bush Administration , the UN administration and for that matter my own government. Do i win some sort of small prize?

The Bush Administration has handled the post sept.11 situation in a way that makes widespread opposition and unrest more likely than necessary, widening Atlantic rifts,  inflaming embers of hatred in the muslim world and pissing off much of the world by adopting their 'with us or against us' attitude (forcing peoples views to harden). An American administration could have invaded Afghanistan and pursued Al-Quaida in a way that would keep historic allies on their side much more successfully (the Iraq war would always be pretty damn unpopular). But then being diplomatic with Johnny Foreigner seems to be regarded as more of a vice than a virtue at the moment in America.

The UN has not helped matters by greatly failing to adapt to the new world situation that has arisen since the end of the cold war. The United Nations is not held in high regard in America. Thats nothing new (its also an understatement) but it cannot be a positive situation where the the international organisation that is supposed to encourage peace between nations and help keep world order is not respected at all by its most powerful member. And i think Americans (and others) have a point when they criticise the UN. There are fundamental and glaring problems with the UN. However unlike USSoldier11B i do not think that the solution is to abolish the UN and wait until a better organisation comes along. The UN is what we've got right now and another organisation would really just be the UN v2.0 .So i think the UN must be reformed from the foundations up. Unfortunatly i dont think this will happen until things have become so bad that change is forced upon the organisation (if it happens at all).

The UN does a lot of great work that noone else is doing as Balschoiw and other have pointed out. It also does a lot of bad work and serves as a crutch of support and legitimacy for dictators and war criminals. Actually i think in an alternative universe the US could have been a major player in helping to positively reform the UN but now its probably too late for that (in the short term anyway). My only solution for now is to wait and see what happens...

[The Frenchman 0]

Cartoon that is kinda funny at first but then..........

This makes me sick!

[USSoldier11B 0]

Quote[/b] ]I have exactly the same problem with the leadership in the USA. I bet Balschoiw has the same opinion, well, most foreigners have that opinion when it comes to the Bush Administration.

Ah, straight to the point. How.....refreshing. Yeah, while I favor the Bush administration to the past one. (You'd have to live here to appreciate the difference as someone sworn to unhold and defend the Constitution watches liberal Democrats use the imperial judiciary and knee-jerk legislation to chip away at basic American civil liberties.) I do shake my head at many of the Bush Administration tactics,mainly concerning Iraq. The truth might have been a better approach. (and no it's not oil) It's understandable that most Europeans find Bush distasteful since the American Conservative Republicans are so far right of standard European political ideology. While you might find Bush threating from over there, try living here and having to deal with people like Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle and Diane Fienstein.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Sorry to but in but this made me laugh

Quote[/b] ](You'd have to live here to appreciate the difference as someone sworn to unhold and defend the Constitution watches liberal Democrats use the imperial judiciary and knee-jerk legislation to chip away at basic American civil liberties.)

Now i confess i dont know all that much about these issues but can you say 'patriot act' ?

(hopefully congress will have a thing or two to say about it)

Its true though that outsiders (europeans) tend to see and hear reports only of certain aspects of foreign governments (US in this case)

I think some of the europeans who are so loving of Clinton now were still pretty critical of the US when he was in charge. Though its also true that Bush is something of a monstrosity from a european perspective.

[Guest]

Here is a good text by former UK cabinet minister Clare Short on the future of the UN:

Quote[/b] ]

What future for the UN?

Clare Short

The United States is now, of course, the world's only great power.

Its economic and military might is massively greater than that of any other country, but too few Americans seem to understand that American power cannot make America safe.

If America continues to throw its weight around and to bully or punish anyone who gets in its way, it will stoke up more and more resentment and hatred across the world.

And this atmosphere acts as a recruiting sergeant for terrorism - the very enemy against which the post-11 September focus of American attention is directed.

Al Qaeda threat

The terrible reality is that the world is more fragile, divided, bitter and unhappy post-11 September, in exactly the way that Osama bin Laden would want.

The enormous tide of sympathy and support that flowed to America after the attacks - from all corners of the world - has now been dissipated.

I fear Bin Laden has won many more recruits, as the US response to 11 September has alienated more and more people.

We are living at a time of massive change in human history. There are now 6 billion of us sharing the planet. In 1900 there were just over 1 billion of us, and population is set to grow to 9 billion by 2050.

Obviously, this population growth strains our environmental resources and makes it crucial that we share and care for our planet much more carefully.

Nearly half the population of the world lives on less than the local equivalent of what $2 per day would buy in the US. Between one and two billion people live in abject poverty on less than the equivalent of $1 per day.

We have better communications than ever before. The world has become a global village and we now witness human suffering wherever it occurs in the world.

This has led to a growth of human solidarity, but also a growth in consciousness of how rich we are in the OECD countries and how poor they are in most of the rest of the world.

We also have capital aplenty, technology and communications and knowledge that can easily be transferred across the world.

Global justice

And thus we have two possible ways forward: either a commitment to greater global justice, sharing knowledge and technology to give everyone in the world the chance of a decent life; or a growth in inequality, bitterness, environmental degradations, disease, war and displacement.

Obviously, greater justice is morally preferable, but it is also in the self interest of the people of the OECD countries and in particular in the interests of the people of the US.

If we are to build a stronger commitment to global justice, we need international law and rules that benefit all people and that are fair to all people.

And to achieve this we need the United Nations.

It is here that all nations meet and agree on international priorities, laws and conventions.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was agreed through the UN. Our commitment to fight HIV/AIDS, get all children to school, abolish polio and smallpox, end wars and send peacekeepers or to authorise military action and much more besides is all taken forward through the UN.

US 'disrespect for UN'

But many in the US hate the UN.

The fanatical Right - represented by people like the Oklahoma bomber - think the UN is a conspiracy to create a world government and destroy America's freedom.

The current administration has shown its disrespect for the UN throughout the Iraq crisis.

But the same attitudes were present during the Clinton administration which refused to pay its dues to the UN, to sign the Kyoto Agreement, accept the authority of the International Criminal Court or even to support the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

It isn't that the US does not operate in the UN system. It finds it useful when it is ready to do America's bidding.

But is soon very exasperated if countries have differing views.

The US wants to use the UN to tell everyone else what they must do and is increasingly willing to use its power to bully and punish those who get in its way.

The sadness of all this is that it is in the interest of the US and the American people, as well as all the rest of us, to build a commitment to international justice and the rule of law.

And we cannot build such a world without a strong commitment to work together through the UN and work to increase its effectiveness and decisiveness.

Let us hope that we will soon begin to learn the lessons of the divisions over Iraq and begin to unite through the UN in a commitment to build a more just, stable and safe world order.

If not, we will see more division and bitterness and, I fear, more terrorism in the years ahead of us.

[USSoldier11B 0]

Quote[/b] ]Sorry to but in but this made me laugh

Quote[/b] ]  

You'd have to live here to appreciate the difference as someone sworn to unhold and defend the Constitution watches liberal Democrats use the imperial judiciary and knee-jerk legislation to chip away at basic American civil liberties.

I fail to find the humor in this.....

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Quote[/b] ] "Yeah, while I favor the Bush administration to the past one. (You'd have to live here to appreciate the difference as someone sworn to unhold and defend the Constitution watches liberal Democrats use the imperial judiciary and knee-jerk legislation to chip away at basic American civil liberties.) "

Whats funny is you're right. I cant appreciate the difference between on the one hand an administration that attempts to

chip away at civil liberties in a series of kneejerk legislative reactions and on the other the former administration of Clinton.

(Or on the third hand my own Blairite government)

On Denoirs article... yes nice analysis of the problems but the 'solution' seems a little sketchy to me. A vague idea of rallying around the UN and making it work like it should?

Well thats convinced the millions of America!

eerr... great.

 I dont think there really will be a full solution for now. Either things will get very bad quite soon and change will be forced in extreme circumstances , or not much will change significantly for quite a long time (years or decades), just the same old bombings, wars, pollution levels etc

probably the second...

[Die Alive 0]

<span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>EU Says Congo Force Cannot Intervene Beyond Bunia </span>

Fri June 13, 2003 07:25 AM ET

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The French commander of a European Union peacekeeping operation in Congo conceded on Friday that the force would not be able to stop ethnic bloodshed if it happened outside its limited area of operation.

Responding to an appeal from the United Nations, the EU will deploy a force of around 1,400 to the eastern town of Bunia -- where hundreds of people have been massacred in tribal clashes -- in what will be its first military operation outside Europe.

Analysts say that one of the main risks is that ethnic violence may simply shift to other areas, leaving the EU peacekeeping operation looking irrelevant.

When asked if the EU force would be able to intervene and stop massacres happening outside Bunia, French General Bruno Neveux, the operation commander of the force, said action outside the town was not part of the EU's mission.

"At this point in time, that is not within our mandate, the mission which has been set for us. (The mission)...is clearly confined to Bunia city and airport and the two refugee camps near the airport," he told reporters.

<span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>Begging for Evacuation</span>

Sudarsan Raghayan

Knight Ridder Newspapers

BUNIA, Congo - For six days, two terrified United Nations military observers phoned their superiors - as many as four times a day - begging to be evacuated from their remote outpost in northeastern Congo.

They were receiving death threats, they said. They were alone and unarmed in Mongbwalu, a former gold-mining town ruled by the cannibalistic Lendu tribal militias. A U.N. helicopter from the town of Bunia could have retrieved them in 35 minutes.

But the United Nations, handcuffed by its own rules and bureaucracy, never sent a chopper. On May 18, 10 days after the two peacekeepers made their first distress call, the United Nations finally flew some armed peacekeepers to Mongbwalu.

They found the mutilated bodies of Maj. Safwat al Oran, 37, of Jordan, and Capt. Siddon Davis Banda, 29, of Malawi.

Their decomposed corpses had been tossed into a canal and covered with dirt, according to those who saw the bodies. They were shot in the eyes. Their stomachs were split open and their hearts and livers were missing. One man's brain was gone.

The murders laid bare the challenge of bringing peace to one of the world's complex and resilient wars and exposed the limits of the United Nation's efforts to do so.

The U.N. mission in Congo (MONUC) has been criticized by many, including some in its own rank-and-file, for being disorganized and naive. Now, its critics charge, it's also partly responsible for the deaths of the two observers.

"Why didn't they rescue them? They had armed troops here, who could have saved them," said one U.N. observer in Bunia, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

"They killed them."

Col. Daniel Vollot, the MONUC sector commander in Bunia, said all U.N. employees here work in dangerous, unpredictable conditions and that MONUC isn't responsible for the deaths of Banda and Oran.

"We can't feel guilty," said Vollot. "Certainly, if we had arrived two or three days before, they would be alive. It's difficult, but I don't feel guilty about that."

The murders were a serious setback to U.N. operations in Congo's Ituri province, where some 50,000 people have died in fighting between Hema and Lendu tribal armies since 1999. After the killings, the United Nations pulled out all its military observers and sent them to Bunia, Ituri's largest town.

Now little is known about what happens even a few miles outside Bunia. Aid workers and human rights observers fear that vast human rights abuses are taking place across Ituri province.

MONUC is "a long, bad story," said Francois Grignon, the Central Africa director for the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based research agency.

Details of the killings in Mongbwalu - one of the most horrific acts of violence against U.N. employees in the international body's 58-year history - are still emerging. The U.N. is investigating what happened.

But in separate interviews with Knight Ridder, five U.N. military observers with knowledge of what happened to Oran and Banda said their murders could have been avoided. In fact, they said, only luck prevented tribal fighters from butchering more helpless military observers trapped in other remote areas.

All five spoke on condition of anonymity because they worried about the repercussions they could face from the United Nations and their own countries.

Vollot acknowledged that Oran and Banda for several days had asked U.N. officials in Kisangani to be pulled out of Mongbwalu.

When asked why U.N. troops weren't sent to pick up the two observers, Vollot said his command's Russian-made Mi-26 helicopters were piloted by civilians. The Russian and Ukrainian pilots were afraid to fly there, and the United Nations didn't want to put their lives at risk, Vollot said.

And under U.N. rules, the ruling Lendu militia had to give permission to land a helicopter in Mongbwalu. It also was unclear which Lendu militia was in charge of the town, he said.

So his soldiers had to wait for clearance from the Lendu chief, and only MONUC headquarters in Kinshasa, the capital, could authorize a rescue operation.

"These are the rules of the United Nations," said Vollot.

The question in many minds is this: Why were the observers sent in the first place?

For years, Mongbwalu was a volatile, violent place in the most volatile, violent province of Congo. Six Red Cross workers were brutally murdered in Ituri in 2001.

Neither Oran nor Banda spoke French, Swahili or any local language. There were no armed U.N. peacekeepers in the area, and the observers were sent with no weapons.

It was Oran's first mission. He had little experience in Africa, let alone in a complex conflict such as Congo where military allegiances often switch day to day, said those who knew him.

"They were so at risk. It was not prudent for two milobs (military observers) to be sent with no force protection to a place which was known to be violent for years," said Nigel Pearson, the medical coordinator in Bunia for Medair, a relief agency.

"It was naive of MONUC. They weren't fully aware of the complexities of the situation."

The U.N. military observers agree. Several were sent in teams of four to other remote parts of Ituri at the same time as Oran and Banda in April. They were urged to go quickly with little preparation, they said. And after they arrived they received little attention from MONUC officials, they said.

"After we got there, they forgot us. Nobody told us what we had to do there," said another U.N. military observer. "I didn't even know which group was Hema and which was Lendu."

At the time, MONUC needed to have a strong presence in Ituri, said the observers. The Ugandan army, which occupied the province, was leaving in accordance with a multinational peace pact. MONUC was expected to fill the security vacuum.

"The U.N. was very pressured to find a solution to the Congo war," said a third U.N. military observer. "They sent observers too soon to a situation where we can't do our work."

On May 8, that became clear. With the Ugandans gone, clashes between Hema and Lendu militias had broken out all over the province. Oran and Banda called MONUC's offices in Kisangani asking to be evacuated, said a fourth U.N. military observer.

But it was unclear who was responsible for the observers. For the next four days, phone calls were exchanged among Kisangani, Bunia and Kinshasa about getting clearance to evacuate Oran and Banda.

"There was a lot of confusion," said the U.N. military observer.

Meanwhile, other U.N. military observers in other parts of Ituri also wanted to be evacuated. Many had to wait several days, too. Some ended up escaping on their own across the Ugandan border. Lendu militias intimidated other observers for days and accused them of spying for the Hemas.

In one instance, an observer had a gun pointed at his head. Armed fighters surrounded other observers, threatening to kill them.

"What happened to the two observers could have happened to me," said one observer, shaking his head.

The last telephone call from Oran and Banda was on May 13.

That was the day the United Nations believes they were killed.

"Everyone is to blame, starting from the guy who planned the operation," said the fourth U.N. military observer.

On Wednesday, MONUC held a memorial service for Oran and Banda in Kinshasa. Senior representatives of all 15 members of the U.N. Security Council, who are here on a fact-finding mission, attended the ceremony.

[edit]Posted full article now[/edit]

-=Die Alive=-

[Commander-598 0]

So...