THE DISGRACEFUL UN ‘PEACEKEEPING’ FORCE

I felt I ought not to write something when I am filled with anger, but to say I am absolutely and totally disgusted would be an understatement.

The uncontrolled actions by South Sudanese troops on 11 July 2016, within close proximity of the increasingly useless and ever-incompetent United Nations Peacekeeping Force, resulted in multiple rapes of foreign aid workers, along with a looting spree and murder. One shudders to think how they treated the local population…

After winning a battle in Juba, the South Sudanese troops celebrated their victory with an uncontrolled four-hour rampage through a popular residential compound preferred by foreigners. One aid worker was allegedly raped 15 times…looting and stealing was the order of the day along with the murder of a journalist.

These despicable actions are indicative of an undisciplined rabble posing as soldiers who have no understanding or knowledge of what the mission of the armed forces is.

Not surprisingly, when the UN peacekeeping force stationed approximately a kilometre away were begged for help, they refused to even respond. Several embassies were also called on for help, but they too did not even bother to react.  Perhaps they did not want to infringe on the ‘human rights’ of the out-of-control soldiers?

I consider the lack of action by both embassies and the UN to be a display of spineless cowardice of the highest order, and nothing else. If the UN ‘peacekeepers’ are unable to protect non-participants, then what on earth are they doing in Southern Sudan let alone in Africa?

This is also merely another example of the folly of forcing the balkanisation of a country and then allowing it to implode.  I am sure Pres Bashir—he of now simply ‘Sudan’—is smiling at the incompetence and lack of control that has now become the norm in another state that was set up for failure. 

I wish the day will come when African governments realise that the UN’s so-called ‘Peacekeeping Department’ has NO desire to keep peace. Their inability to perform their function has been proven time and again across Africa. Instead, it is a United Nations sanctioned ‘occupying force’ that continually turns a blind eye to atrocities committed against the vulnerable.

Instead of acting as their name implies and assisting the innocent, they cower behind their barricades like spineless creatures and watch rape, looting and murder take place.

Yet, despite a seriously blighted track record littered with failure after failure, the UN still continues to convince African governments that it is needed, and that it is a ‘successful’ organisation. To reinforce this bluff, they are probably going to increase their force levels and of course, their budget. This will imply that governments must ‘pay more for less’—a corrupt business model if ever there was one.

One only has to look at the gross failure ‘peacekeeping’ has become in DRC. If peace was measured by the amount of peacekeepers and the size of the budget, DRC ought to be a very stable and peaceful country. Sadly, that is not the case.

But if our governments wish to turn a blind eye to this grossly disgraceful incompetent organisation of incompetents, then they will have to suffer the consequences. Equally sad is that the ‘world’ watches and says very little to nothing. But watching these atrocities happen and saying nothing is silent complicity in this gross violation of all that is supposedly humanity.

One also has to wonder who trained these scumbags. It is obvious that they are lacking in any type of training befitting a peacekeeping force as they have yet to yield a positive result anywhere in Africa. Where does the UN find its particularly cowardly dirtbags who make up the misnamed ‘peacekeeping’ forces?

In the not too distant past, commanders who watched atrocities being committed and did nothing to stop them or intervene were considered to be complicit in the atrocities. They were charged with war crimes…

Not so the UN.

They will probably claim they were unable to stop the rampage, call for a ‘special UN investigation’, and insist on an increase in ‘peacekeepers’ along with a massive increase in their budget. And when they finally run out of Southern Sudan, they will hail it another great success story.

The so-called UN ‘peacekeepers’ are nothing other than an international disgrace and the perpetrators of these atrocities should, by all rights, face trial for war crimes.  

ANOTHER MONUMENTAL UN MESS IN THE DRC

On 29 April 2009, the BBC ran an interesting article on the DRC. Who else could be the main actors in this story but the UN’s result-lacking mission to the DRC (MONUC) and an ex-rebel leader wanted for war crimes?

According to the BBC – a comment based on a Congolese army paper - an indicted war criminal is currently playing a leading role in the joint-MONUC/Congolese Army’s chain of command in the DRC. “General” Bosco Ntaganda – better known as "the Terminator" - is wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for alleged forced enrolment of child soldiers in 2002-2003.

Here is an extract from the BBC’s report on this matter:

“The BBC's Thomas Fessy in the capital, Kinshasa, has seen an internal Congolese army document, dated 4 April 2009, which refers to Gen Ntaganda as the deputy co-ordinator for the joint mission's operations.
Our correspondent says the paper - which notes that Gen Ntaganda spoke during an operations meeting - proves he is playing a major role in the chain of command.
A high-ranking Congolese army official confirmed the former rebel leader was involved in the operations, describing him as an adviser to the operations commander.
The UN's peacekeeping force in DR Congo, which is known as Monuc, denied the report”.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8023978.stm)

One needs to ask if MONUC is unaware of whom Ntaganda is and if so, why haven’t they been reading the indictments by the ICC as relates to the DRC. Or are they using Ntaganda because he is more capable than their own officers?

Can it be possible that a so-called “peacekeeping organisation”, with unlimited resources and funding (17 000 men plus), is actually this incompetent? Quick to condemn others, this bloated, inefficient organisation masquerading as a “peacekeeping force” needs to be held accountable for its failures and ineptitude.

Even the New York-based Human Rights Watch has expressed its dismay:

"We are very worried by this information and it seems to us that the United Nations is acting like an ostrich with its head in the sand…
"It's time now this is addressed head on. Rather than denying or ignoring the role being played by Bosco Ntaganda, the UN should be actively seeking his arrest and transferring him to The Hague."
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8023978.stm)

Whereas it is well known that MONUC apparently has somewhat of a history of partiality towards rebels in the DRC, it will be interesting to see if UN Reporter Talif Deen, who so vigorously attacked EO for daring to assist legitimate governments in Angola and Sierra Leone, will use his pen to further expose their duplicity , hypocrisy and gross incompetence. I do, however, have my doubts…

It also remains to be seen if the UN will appoint a Special Rapporteur such as Mr Enrique Ballesteros to investigate these allegations. Perhaps, in keeping with his previously long-winded title for the EO report he so falsely penned, they could name this new effort of hiding the truth “Report on the question on the use of an indicted War Criminal as a means of assisting the UN’s Mission in the DRC (MONUC) to ensure the continued violation of human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination”.

If the UN is incapable of finding officers who are not wanted by the International Criminal Court to command operations to locate and destroy rebels, it is time to contract a PMC to do what should be done. This will cost a fraction of the wastage the UN is currently thriving on, achieve more results faster and bring about an end to this lengthy conflict for once and for all.

Sadly though, the UN are simply prolonging it.

THE UN FINALLY ADMITS ITS INEPTITUDE IN DRC

I still recall the arrogance of the UN’s peacekeepers when they arrived in Angola as part of UNAVEM. The “peace” they brought with them led to that country’s return to conflict.

They miraculously achieved the same in Sierra Leone. They arrived after EO had virtually destroyed the rebels. They replaced EO’s 250 men with more than 17 000 men and then watched the country slide back into chaos. At a cost of more than US$ 600 million a year (2001), they applauded their “success” as the most successful UN mission ever. Never mind that the rebels were able to re-arm and butcher, eat, rape, torture and destroy whatever was in their path – the UN saw their mission in that country (UNAMSIL) as a great success.

Then of course, there was their brave and heroic stand in Rwanda where they spent approx another US$ 600 million within 6 months – and then fled the genocide with their tails between their legs. That was their idea of peacekeeping.

Some time ago (2008), I said to a UN general that their lies, deception and bluster will one day be exposed for what it is. I also stated that when success is measured by the amount of money spent and the amount of civilian casualties caused, then something is very seriously wrong.

Whereas the DRC must rank alongside the greatest “military” blunders ever undertaken by the UN, someone has finally had the courage to speak out. But, it has taken so long to admit their ineptitude. In the process, hundreds of thousands of people have died and been made homeless. (See http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-12-18-un-official-casts-doubt-on-drc-peacekeepers)

The great tragedy is that their presence in eastern DRC has only made the problem worse for the civilians in that area. Their departure will now only make it worse. That is a tragedy the UN should be held responsible for. The millions of casualties in that conflict should be on their conscience.

Will they be held accountable? Most unlikely.

Will they be shut down? Never.

Will they contract a reputable PMC to resolve the mess they have caused? Definitely not! They will rather flee and watch the entire region implode and then explode. Perhaps they will also hail this mess as another of their successes.

In the meantime, they may now set their sights on creating an environment where piracy off the East African coast can really flourish.

THE GREAT LAKES CATASTROPHE

Having been falsely accused in the 90s by the SA Department of Foreign Affairs and some of the “intelligence fabricators” of Military Intelligence as well as the media reporting on Executive Outcomes’ alleged involvement in the Great Lakes area – and in particular in Rwanda and Burundi – it is only natural that I take a good, hard look at what is unfolding in that area. (In case ex-Director-General Rusty Evans and his merry MI and media friends wish to deny or dispute this, I shall gladly post their false and fabricated “secret” and not-so-secret reports on the internet).

Africa’s Great Lakes area’s riches are also its curse. This area consists of eleven countries but it is generally considered to comprise Rwanda, Burundi, DRC, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, and is rich in natural resources such as gold, copper, oil, coltran, diamonds, water, uranium, cobalt and more. Many of the resources in this area are considered to be strategic in nature. However, the area is also characterised by acute shortages of power, widespread poverty, corruption, poorly maintained infrastructure – and political power struggles, tribal antagonism and corruption.

The DRC, the largest owner of these resources, is the stage that is being used to play out the catastrophe the world is currently witnessing – a catastrophe brought about by an abundance of resources instead of a shortage of them – and a desire by outside parties to gain control over the resources. Added to this mix is the clandestine foreign aid, mainly from the US and the UK, being channelled through Rwanda to the rebel CNDP of Laurent Nkunda.

The wars that are currently raging in that area are not focussed on gaining military victories but rather in wresting control over resources. This is in part because in Africa – unlike as in the West - politics drive the economies and not visa versa.

Stability in the Great Lakes region is hampered by numerous factors, many if not all of them, being driven by outside forces. In essence, these factors are mainly greed and power and these two factors are being used to fuel the tribal and ethnic tensions in the region. The resultant spill-over effect is bound to have serious repercussions on all neighbouring states and even beyond, and is likely to plunge the area into even deeper chaos and poverty. The migration of huge numbers of refugees will add additional financial and social strains on the states neighbouring the conflict area.

But, when looking (simplistically) at what is happening, the following can be noted:

1. The US Special Forces are actively involved in training the Rwandan armed forces.
2. The Rwandan army is accused of aiding and abetting the rebels of Nkunda’s CNDP. There are also allegations that serving Rwandan soldiers are fighting alongside the CNDP in the DRC. (Were they trained by the US army?)
3. Rwanda is additionally supplying child-soldiers to the rebels in DRC.
4. In violation of the UN arms embargo, Rwanda is also supplying arms and ammunition to the rebel forces of the CNDP.
5. The United Kingdom is pumping a huge amount of money in the direction of Rwanda. Much of this is being used for actions in the DRC to support Nkunda’s rebels. Perhaps President Kagame’s recent, under-the-radar visit to the UK was to get more money for his actions in the DRC?
6. The head of Anglo American’s Brenthurst Foundation, Dr Greg Mills, was appointed as “Special Advisor to the President” and is part of the Strategy and Policy Unit of the Rwandan President. The official announcement was made on 31 October 2007. Mills was also an advisor to General Richards and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.
7. Barely a year after Mills was appointed, heavy fighting resumed between the FARDC (DRC armed forces) and the CNDP. One wonders what advice was given.
8. The CNDP has called for a condition of any ceasefire the review of all resource mining and exploration contracts awarded to the Chinese - so that they can go to…who knows?
9. South Africa supplies weapons to Rwanda.
10. South African weapons are also being used by the CNDP.

I wonder if all of this is pure coincidence. I also wonder why the UN, with its many thousands of men on the ground, are unable to figure this out?

Given the apathy of the West and in particular the UN, who have for a long time stood idly by and watched the civilians in that region to suffer the horrors they are faced with, their reason for being there needs to be seriously questioned. With the UN’s superior firepower they remain ineffectual and unable or unwilling to stop the fighting. (See http://www.africancrisis.co.za/Article.php?ID=39573&) With a peacekeeping force of 17 000 men and approval for an additional 3 000 men, they are surely the most useless peacekeeping force the world has ever known.

Many of the failed states in Africa are the result of overt and covert interference by foreign governments and companies. This interference takes the form of poor advice, misguided policies and giving credibility and empowerment to those that abuse their powers – all aimed at gaining control over resources and influence over the governments. Yes, there is tribalism, power struggles and corruption at work as well but there is corruption all over the world. The recent economic meltdown in the West was surely not caused by honest and responsible business practices.

However in Africa, the fuelling of corruption leads to an escalation in power-grabbing and the resultant ethnic and tribal strife we witness. African governments at war mean large profits, regardless of the collateral fall-out. I suspect that the parties involved in fuelling the conflict have caused more harm to the local population than the warring parties have caused to the opposing sides.

The benefits that many foreign governments, the UN, several NGOs, as well as numerous multi-nationals derive from the Great Lakes conflict are astronomical. Yet the great irony remains – one of the most resource-rich areas in the world is also one of the poorest. Thousands of people have been killed in this conflict and hundreds of thousands have been displaced. Yet, the catastrophe does not feature high on anyone’s agenda. Had this situation occurred anywhere in the West, the great powers would have stepped in and put a stop to it. But this is Africa. Here deaths, white or black, don’t matter.

Perhaps the time has come that the situation in the Great Lakes area is exposed for what it is - an attempt by Rwanda and its foreign allies to grab the resources in the DRC.

Added on 13 December: Here is an interesting follow-on article on the DRC:
http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,,2-11-1447_2441811,00.html

Added on 14 December: This article from the New York Times is indicative of the utter uselessness of the UN’s peacekeeping mission in the DRC. The excuses offered as to why and how the massacre happened defy belief. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/11/world/africa/11congo.html?_r=1

Added on 16 December 2008: Another interesting article on the massive wastage and incompetence that reigns supreme in the UN. To think that they can even point a finger at corrupt governments…It is about time that this organisation is exposed for what it is. http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htun/articles/20081214.aspx

DO CEASEFIRES PROLONG WARS IN AFRICA?

War is an ugly, brutal and bloody business – as any soldier can testify. Despite the ugliness and destruction a war causes – along with the collateral damage - it does have a desirable outcome: it ultimately leads to the resolution of an armed conflict and thus, in due course, brings about peace.

But, war is simply a continuation of politics, albeit politics that have gone very wrong. However, when the situation deteriorates to the extent that a nation enters into a war, beit cross-border or localised, it ought to have one final aim: the complete and total destruction of the enemy. This defeat can be brought about either through total exhaustion of the opposing forces or their total destruction on the battlefield. To achieve this, the political leaders and the government need determination and courage to see the conflict through to its final conclusion.

By prematurely interrupting a war with a ceasefire (and the usual follow-on of UN peacekeepers) only gives the opposing force an opportunity to recover its losses, re-arm, re-strategise and then simply continue the war again. (Examples of such occurrences are Angola, Sierra Leone, DRC and such). Furthermore, an internationally imposed ceasefire does not allow the antagonised government to negotiate from a position of strength – a position that is vital to secure a lasting peace. It merely puts a lid on the pot and allows it to continue simmering, usually with tragic results.

The ceasefire also gives credibility to the opposing forces as they are formally recognised and given a sympathy they do not always deserve. Therefore, a ceasefire invariably prolongs the conflict instead of ending it. Peace, on the other hand, can only take root once a war has run its course and been finalised by one of the warring parties. (Hence the comment I made back in 1994 - there can be no peacekeeping if there is no peace).

For that simple reason, the foremost principle of war is “the selection and maintenance of the aim”. The primary aim of war is to achieve a decisive victory over the opposing force - militarily, economically and politically. The opposing force cannot be allowed to believe that they may just win the conflict and therefore its will to fight must be destroyed as well. But when the aim is poorly formulated or selected to be politically correct, disaster is inevitable. Without achieving the aim, the government is unable to negotiate a sustained peace. But, when politicians meddle with the plans of battle and dictate military strategy and tactics, the commanders are usually unable to achieve the aim.

For a government’s military machine to achieve the aim requires – apart from a well-trained, disciplined and well-led force - lightning-strikes on enemy rear-areas and logistical supply lines, destruction of enemy training bases, decisive battlefield confrontations on ground of its choosing, maximum use of the air weapon, skilful propaganda, good intelligence and more. For all of the criticisms levelled at governments engaged in armed conflict, the truth is that they do want to end it as soon as possible, for a host of reasons, but often don’t have skills or the resources. But, war is good for some corporations and organisations, especially some of those involved in resource exploitation and “humanitarian” work. In Africa, wars are often started due to international meddling and corporate greed.

When a ceasefire is imposed by outside parties such as the UN, EU, AU and so forth, it prevents the government that is protecting its territorial and political integrity from achieving its aim. A ceasefire, additionally, merely protects the opposing side from the consequences of its action of starting the conflict. It furthermore gives breathing space to the opposing force and thereby legitimises its actions. Taken a step further, it gives major corporations access to areas where profit maximisation can take place – as instability allows them to buy products/resources cheaply and sell those products/resources at grossly inflated profit margins with minimum input costs.

Africa is littered with examples where ceasefires have simply prolonged the conflicts and added to the misery of those caught up in the conflict. Along with the ceasefire usually comes a large, ineffective, money-eating UN peacekeeping force. Their book of success in especially Africa is very, very slim indeed.

The arrival of so-called peacekeepers simply compounds the problem as the local population develop a false sense of security – and instead of fleeing the combat zone, they actually remain there, believing the peacekeepers will protect them… a big mistake as witnessed in Rwanda, Bosnia, DRC and elsewhere. Furthermore, the ability of the UN’s peacekeepers to switch support from one side to another in order to refrain from having to take any decisive action leads to the local population’s distrust and dislike towards them. The frequent stoning of UN convoys by the locals in the DRC is illustrative of this statement.

A too early ceasefire not only creates uncertainty and it invariably leads to a rapid escalation in crime – usually violent in nature. With no effective policing in place, this leads to the brutalisation of the local population who are mainly innocent bystanders. But the ceasefire is also a source for fresh fighters. In Africa, this has resulted in the forced recruitment of children as young as 8-years old to take sides with the warring parties. The trauma of these child-soldiers is not something that will disappear within a year or two.

Trailing behind the peacekeepers are some (not all) NGOs whose sole aim is to perpetuate themselves by using the media to give their organisations credibility and visibility and thus attract donations and other forms of funding. (Despite the claims, I have yet to meet a member of an NGO who worked for no salary). The camps these NGOs establish for the refugees fleeing the area are very often strategically placed to ensure maximum media access and coverage to ensure that the world is kept abreast of their good work. But more than often these camps are a breeding ground for resentment and hatred – and thus become a ready source for more fighters, to say nothing of anger, disease and squalor.

Many NGOs have also been known to provide support to the warring factions on both sides, thus again simply prolonging the conflict. Their reason for serving both sides is often the claim that they cannot be singled out by one side as favouring another. Thus, all are welcome at their table. Whereas their support to the displaced persons is indeed noble to the uninitiated, their too-early insertion into a conflict zone serves no positive role and indeed becomes another cog in the logistical supply line of the warring parties.

But the truth is that some NGOs benefit from war and benefit even more from ceasefires. In fact, they call for ceasefires in order to fill their financial coffers – as does the UN and its peacekeepers. Without ceasefires, the UN’s peacekeepers would have no cause for existence. In fact, they won’t make money. The longer the ceasefire continues, the more money the peacekeepers make. Small wonder they want ceasefires to continue for years. The media “strategists” are of course keen to propagate the ceasefire and thus aid and abet the opposing force, sometimes unwittingly and so, invariably, the media reporting becomes subjective - even more so when the media becomes the mouthpiece of the rebel forces.

Ceasefires are good for business. If there were no ceasefires, there would be no need for the massive but ineffectual UN peacekeeping efforts and the billions of dollars required to sustain them. Nor would there be a requirement for some of the NGOs that trail in their wake. Likewise, several corporations would be denied access to “cheap” resources.

Whereas ceasefires may be good for business, they are bad for governments engaged in wars as the government is denied the opportunity to achieve the fundamental aim of war. Instead, the problem simply continues to simmer and boil below the surface until it eventually erupts into war again.

THE FAILURE(S) OF THE UN IN AFRICA

It is astonishing that no-one in the United Nations (UN) has the moral courage to step forward and admit their shameful behaviour and subsequent failures in Africa. In fact, their lack of contribution to keeping peace in Africa has been nothing but disgraceful. At least some UN generals have opted to rather leave than be tainted with this shambles. Perhaps they knew that if they didn’t jump they would be pushed.

Perhaps the time has come to hold the UN accountable for not only its mismanagement, mis-strategising, misconduct and for completely missing the objectives of peacekeeping but also for the many thousands of lives that their incompetence has caused. But, this will never happen as long as their salaries are paid. They will merely continue to show their complete lack of understanding insofar as conflict-cause, conflict resolution, strategy and conflict-containment is concerned. Coupled to a lack of discipline, poor command and control, inadequate training and little to no intelligence, the state of affairs just gets worse.

The current situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is a perfect example at hand.

The UN boasts that this is its largest peacekeeping mission in the world with in excess of 17 000 men. The costs to maintain this monstrously inept machine are enormous. The results they have achieved thus far hover close to an absolute zero. The fact that they are even allowed to wear military uniforms and travel in military vehicles ought to be a disgrace to any military man with some pride.

Hiding behind the impressive name of MONUC, this force has been unable to enforce or keep any peace whatsoever. Yet, their press releases appear to intimate successes that are invisible to everyone else. Chaos and lives lost are apparently of no consequence to them. Hundreds of thousands of people have been made homeless and continue to flee the conflict area, yet MONUC seems oblivious to all of this. If they really are that keen to do their job, why aren’t they then doing it? Perhaps they too will soon blame “mission creep” for their failures. Or, when the whole world finally sits up and takes note, they will probably state that a peace agreement is “imminent”. Until then, Ban Ki-moon and his cohorts will continue to express their desire to solve problems – and do nothing. Besides, solving the problem could have a negative influence on their “jobs-for-life” mentality.

They give themselves a new name for every mission and loudly proclaim how they are going to make a difference. The truth is that they do make a difference – upon their arrival things rapidly progress from bad to worse. Then, as they steadily entrench the chaos they bring, they quickly blame everyone else for their ineffectiveness. When they are called on to stand their ground, they buckle and leave in a hurry – or even worse, as they did in Angola, they blame the government for wanting to finish off the rebel forces while they in turn ooze sympathy for the rebels.

Indeed, in Angola it was well known to the men of EO that these so-called blue-helmeted soldiers would, once they arrived to keep the peace, snivel in their bases and send back false area intelligence and patrol reports to their headquarters in Luanda. These reports, which the EO signallers intercepted – and which I still have in my possession - showed what true peacekeeping incompetence is. Even worse, they gave the rebels glowing reports while blaming government forces for any cease-fire violations when the opposite was true.

Had that same situation occurred anywhere in Europe or even the USA, the besieged government would have been helped to defeat any rebel movement aimed at overthrowing or destabilising it. But this does not happen in Africa. Here both sides are supported by the UN and some Western governments/multi-nationals and then a decision is made as to who the winner is likely to be and then that side is supported – until they are overwhelmed. The UN is able to switch sides faster than one can throw a light switch. After all, Africa is mainly black with a couple of whites thrown in – so why would they care? At the end of the day, these lives – be it black or white – are just expendable Africans as far as they are concerned.

Just look what the UN actually achieved in Angola: The rebels, defeated on the battlefield, signed the peace accord in Lusaka, the peacekeepers arrived, confined everyone to base, forced the military to disarm while quietly (and knowingly) allowed the rebels to re-arm and then, when the war broke out again, they fled with their tails between their legs, blaming the government for defending itself. Is that peacekeeping or chaos-creation?

They also successfully applied a similar strategy in Sierra Leone, eventually losing so much control that the British and US had to race to the rescue. Before the DRC, this was their largest mission which they eventually hailed as a great triumph to peacekeeping. If one really looks at what happened in Sierra Leone, the UN is solely to blame for massive loss of life and destruction to personal property – to say nothing of the trauma, disillusionment and refugees they left in their wake.

Their record of indulging in criminal acts is also well documented – child prostitution, looting, rape, robbery and even murder are seemingly part of their peacekeeping portfolio. Perhaps the time has come for governments to start speaking out against the UN’s blundering and fuelling of fires. African governments should hold the UN accountable when they fail as dismally as they do.

It would furthermore do African leaders well to contract reliable PMCs to assist them with redefining containment strategies and implementing those strategies. The UN’s peacekeepers can then be expelled from African soil. This will ensure that there is a definite timeline for ending the conflict. Apart from the fact that it will cost a fraction of what it costs the UN – the DRC costs are currently estimated to be US$ 1,2 billion a year - it will also ensure commitment to complete the mission and there will be accountability to the contracting government – something the UN has neither of.

My next posting will take a brief look at the piracy problem off Africa’s east coast.