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.
Showing posts with label MONUC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MONUC. Show all posts
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Friday, December 5, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)