What is Digg?132 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -21/+66Sadly, the answer to your question is "Yes"...this is what I have come to expect from U.N. peacekeeping missions...
- VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -10/+52It has everything to do with the UN, it is their people and they need to hold them accountable instead of shrugging their shoulders and sweeping it under the rug.
Did you not read the article...
"Since the 1990s, the U.N. peacekeeping missions have been plagued with sexual misconduct scandals. According to The Washington Post, it first started in Cambodia with U.N. peacekeepers sexually abusing young girls. At that time, the U.N. dismissed the claims with a careless attitude--as if it were inevitable to occur. Meanwhile, the abuses continued and a culture of silence developed. "
"In fact, the U.N. police operated brothels there and trafficked people.(1) "
"In the Congo, the alleged cases of sexual exploitation include child porn rings, sex shows and rape of babies.(2)"
"In Timor, at least 20 babies fathered by peacekeepers have been abandoned. There have also been allegations of child sex abuse, bestiality and coercion into prostitution.(3)"
"In Haiti, peacekeepers offer young teens a few dollars and some food in exchange for sex.(4)."
""Most countries have little interest in seeing their peacekeepers brought to trial for crimes committed while 'doing good deeds' elsewhere in the world," according to Refugees International. It doesn't seem to matter that they are U.N. peacekeepers committing human rights violations. "
(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30286-2005Mar12.html
(2) http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/4047/
(3) http://www.peacewomen.org/un/pkwatch/pkwatch.html
(4) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6159923.stm - iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -6/+42You can bet they aren't from the US because if they were the title would be UN_believable_Sex_crimes_by_US_peacekeepers_worldwide
- stonerider, on 10/12/2007, -8/+38When I was an intern at the UN HQ in New York, I did a research on this type of behaviour by the UN Peacekeepers. In Congo, the UN and the liberal media covered up many incidents of rape perpetuated by the Indian (from India, not native americans) peacekeeping soldiers under the UN banner. When I interviewed an Indian general, he got angry and denied it categorically. Until the people in authority recognize it, this will only continue.
- rbanffy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25Somebody got that "make love, not war" thing wrong...
- VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -12/+33Give me a break, America holds their soldiers accountable at least..
The problem is that the UN is doing exactly what it is trying to protect the people from. - Tenlow, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24It's been said that men who have power will use it.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18One problem is that it appears to be up to the government who sent the troops to prosecute, e.g. Swedish UN troops have been prosecuted in Sweden for patronizing prostitutes in Bosnia (_prostitution_ is legal, but _paying for sex_ illegal under swedish law).
That soldiers pay local women for sex is of course reprehensible, but in a war such as the one in e.g. Congo (see e.g. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article362215.ece , http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41597.htm , http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/drc/Congo0602-04.htm or http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engafr620192004), where the local forces routinely use rape, often combined with shooting or stabbing the women in the vagina, and/or cutting off and eating the labia (which are considered 'magical'), as a means of terrorizing the population, UN troops is surely the lesser of two evils.
The most serious allegation in the article is that of rape / baby rape / kiddie porn by UN soldiers. The most relevant I find on that is this article:
http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/childrenandwar/news_abuse_by_un_troops.php
alleging that prosecution is made difficult by the fact that the UN only holds jurisdiction over the soldiers while they're serving under UN flag, and since the investigations will generally take longer than the 6 months they serve in a conflict... Well, judging by that article the UN does need to amend the rules wrt legal responsibilities for atrocities under UN flag. - DCMacHead, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23I am curious to know the nationality of the peacekeepers involved in this type of behavior. The countries whose military personnel engage in this type of behavior need to be shamed. Unfortunately, as is often the case with the U.N., these people remain under the U.N. flag (which means zero accountability) and engage in the type of behavior one would expect from an organization that governs by the lowest common denominator.
- VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -13/+28I am seriously seriously aghast at you guys. I am so stunned, I honestly can not believe that you would find excuses for the UN on their human rights crimes but you would jump up and down pointing and demanding retribution against the US.. What is wrong with you people that you would make excuses for the behavior.. This really makes me believe that men should not be in charge at all..
- geekchic, on 10/12/2007, -9/+22"It has everything to do with the UN, it is their people"
That's the whole point though - these are NOT the UN's own staff.
They are employees of soverign nations who deploy them under the command of an internationally agreed commander with a mandate from the soverign nations which make up the UN.
A Congolese army officer is still a Congolese army officer regardless of the colour of the helmet they are wearing. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16Doncha think that, oh you know, that a responsible organization wouldn't let rape and sex slavery go on under it's auspices?
- VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15They are responsible for these people I don't care what country deploys them to the UN. They are commiting human right violations. There is nothing around it, they are doing it. The UN has a problem and they need to solve it. Whether they prosecute these people or they require the country they are from to presecute them.
Just because someone is a member of the UN does not allow them to do the things they are doing, that is insane. No wonder the people in Africa are thumbing their noses at them.
If they are under the UN hat they represent the UN. - an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9again, who is saying that they should not be held accountable? I (and many others) would like to have a word with the folks in the pro-baby raping camp.
- Namrok, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15I couldn't agree more. It's all because these people believe the ends justify the means, and that the UN is the only organization that should be responsible for bringing about peace. What it ignores is that the ends do not justify the means (obviously) and the UN consists of the cream of the crop of corruption when it comes to its members.
- reyitocazador, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Out of 80,000 peace keepers there were 221 acts reported over a 2 year period.
So roughly 0.2% of peace keepers committed some atrocity? Certainly multiple acts were committed by single individuals and certainly many acts probably went undocumented or unreported, but compared to crime rates in civilized societies, this is hardly statistically significant.
These acts are horrible, but this is alarmist reporting.
Marked as inaccurate - vuke69, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Prostitution - SO? This happens in every country in the world. Supply and demand my friends. Even if you think it is wrong, it is both sides at fault.
Trading food for sex - NOT ok. That food was supposed to be given to them, no strings attached. This is theft, and exploitation.
Rape - NEVER ever, under any circumstances ok. I don't care (yes I do, but not the point) what the locals in Congo do to little girls there, the UN should be there to help, not make a bad situation worse. - hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7You don't seem have a solution, but you want to crucify the U.N. for not magically coming up with one.
I'll ask again: should the U.N. be able to prosecute U.S. troops after they have left U.N. service? If the answer is no, how can you realistically hold them accountable for the actions of troops that are only under their command for for six-month durations? - jacobmiller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7That is just the title of the program, and definitely not the "official" stance of the U.N.
- Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this kind of behavior has gone on in every military and pseudo-military action ever, by all sides. The difference now is our ability to find out about it.
Tubes FTW. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13Couldn't agree with you more, Whimsy. Some poor terrorist gets too cold at night and the world is ending. A bunch of ***** UN troops rape babies and excuses get made.
- VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8vietvet RTFA
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13Because if it was US or UK troops that were trading sex for food or raping little girls it would be world wide news. And all you liberals would be smiling and pointing fingers, instead of making excuses and trying to find moral equivalence.
- StereoMan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Certainly any involvements in kidnapping, slavery, child pornography, are reprehensible. Previous reports indicate that UN "peacekeepers" have engaged in such actions. Why then is it necessary, or preferable perhaps, for the "ohmy news" writer to misrepresent the case? When the truth is already bad enough, why misrepresent the truth to make it seem worse?
I agree with you, VolatileWhimsy, that the UN should have some standards of behavior to which their "peacekeepers" are held accountable, and such standards should at the very least include those listed above. But you indicated in your post that "the UN . . . require[s] women to have sex with them in exchange for food." It reads as though you think this is a UN policy. Is that your opinion?
It's also true that these kind of atrocities occur in every war, always have, and likely always will. Women and children inevitably are disproportionately victimized by war. It is to the credit of our own nation that those few individuals who engage in such behavior while wearing the uniform of the US are held accountable for their misdeeds. In our zeal to show our "support" for "our troops" we readily accept that such misdeeds are the exception and not the rule. Why then would one attribute the actions of those few who engage in such behavior while wearing the Blue Helmet as being the actions, or even the policy, of the UN? - fuckingusername, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8whats going on in this world?
This should be on cnn,abc,nbc,cbs
but no you see how some university has discovered that fat lazy women can eat more Twinkies and loose weight, if they reduce their ding-dong intake.
sad sad - hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Obviously, soldiers that commit crimes need to be punished for those crimes, but I sense an agenda that goes beyond the facts here. There is obviously a strong anti-U.N. sentiment in this thread that magnifies their offenses as a sign that the organization is completely "broken" and without merit. The funny thing is that I suspect that who are the loudest in condemning the actions of the U.N. soldiers, would be equally loud defending U.S. troops who have engaged in some pretty heinous practices as well.
And the U.N. peacekeeping troops come from contributions of member nations. The crimes they commit are more reflective of the training and character of the countries who donate the troops than they are of the U.N. itself. The solution would be to give the U.N. more power, perhaps it's own standing force. No military justice system would be able to investigate and prosecute within the six-month time that the typical U.N. assignment lasts. - aceg1357, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10If this was a country like the US, Britain, Italy etc, they would be held accountable for their actions. It would be a big story on the news for days and weeks. There would be a quick and in depth investigation, and heads would role.
But under the UN, they try to sweep it under the rug. It is barely reported because the press thinks the UN is the savior of the world- hey the ends justify the means for them. There is an investigation only after pressure, and little consequences for the soldiers.
There is something very wrong with the UN and hopefully getting Kofi out, can at least reverse course a bit. I know, probably not but I guess I am just an optimist. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@pos3r: so you don't know that US and UK troops do in fact participate in UN operations. Why am I not surprised?
However, according to this link: http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/childrenandwar/news_abuse_by_un_troops.php
these particular soldiers were indeed neither US nor UK, but from Morocco, Pakistan, Uruguay, Tunisia, and Nepal, with the Moroccan troops apparently the worst offenders. - hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9How would you favor solving the dilemma? Should the U.N. be able to prosecute soldiers after their six month assignment is up an they have gone back home? How about: should the U.N. be able to prosecute U.S. soldiers after they have left U.N. service?
Those are tough questions that your knee-jerk sniping doesn't begin to address. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Or the outrage from people who've actually read the article.
- TheBag, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9stonerider: "and the liberal media"
Right, the 'liberal media' approves of rape while 'conservative media' is vehemently opposed.
You don't need to be of any political persuasion to see how absurd that sounds. - deanbag, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7This article's very fishy. There's a big difference between soldiers raping children and soldiers visiting a brothel; this article lumps them all together. Also, the time period is quite large - it cites incidences from over the last 15 years. The things sited are horrible, but have changes already been made in soldier accountability in the last decade? Is this really an urgent problem, or is it just someone bashing the UN for things that have long since been corrected? From the article, I just can't tell.
- VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Yes I know the world is not a nice place and yes I understand some people are just ugly, but that does not excuse atrocities. These men commited these crimes and they should be held accountalbe. They were part of an organization that expects the nations of the world to not commit these exact same crimes. And raping babies is not a grey area, among other things they did.....
@annoy
Good try but it just didn't cut it. - nonannystate, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12The UN is a worthless entity that has failed in every single one of its Charter elements (20 pages of enough hot air to heat all of NYC) such as "bringing larger freedom" whatever the hell that means. Bosnia...Somalia...Rwanda...Sudan...Iran...Iraq...Israel (oh, wait, right, they're really good at telling Israel they have no right to defend themselves; maybe that is a success after all)...Haiti...Cambodia... Just count 'em off. Dozens and dozens of genocidal atrocities while the UN stood idly by.
So not only do they not stop or prevent human tragedies, they commit them. There is absolutely no justification for the billion dollar existence of this worthless and worse--harmful--behemoth of an organization. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8I believe the official UN stance on this matter is: "Boys will be boys".
Don't believe me?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/audiovideo/programmes/correspondent/2043794.stm - gsnedders, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4They aren't the UN's soldiers - they're sent by member countries to act on behalf of the UN.
- darkstar949, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Whackly - You raise some good points, but I think that part of the problem is the fact that UN Peace Keepers are not subject to a form of military discipline that can be directed by the UN force commander. As noted there is little that the commander can do short of sending them home with a reprimand and recommendations for further punishment. Short of an agreement between the nation providing the troops and the UN that allows for a form of UN discipline it is unlikely that much will change.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@ p0s3r
I don't know why you're being dugg down. This is EXACTLY what the media in the USA portrays. - nicabar, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8@VolatileWhimsy
While there is ZERO excuse for rape, it is my understanding; some of these people you are so "aghast" by are merely taking in the entire situation. The situation is grayer than the articles sensationalistic "journalist" proclaims.
The world can be a very very dark place. And, sometimes that darkness seeps into those that originally attempted to help. Sometimes! - DeepDoo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6You can call them peacekeepers, but really they are always an (even if temporary) occupying army. Since the dawn of time, occupying armies have behaved this way. Its terrible and it shouldn't happen, but it does. I am no supporter of the UN. I think they fail way more than they succeed. But they are no more guilty than any other military unit. ALL armies should stop this stuff. Not just the UN.
- AlphaEta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This comment put my ***** meter in the red!
- hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8How do you know the soldiers were not U.S. or British? The article doesn't say. U.S. soldiers have certainly paid for sex from foreign prostitutes before.
- cosmicdreams, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This is not a relevant argument. Just because others are doing bad things and violating human rights does NOT having any impact on another individual's decision to violate human rights. If you decide to violate humanity and commit atrocities like these, that is on you. We should hold the UN responsible for their soldiers because it is their administration that enabled these things to happen, but in the end it is the soldiers we should punish.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@hipnerd: Part of the nuttiest right in the US believes that the UN is the "world government", basically a front for the Illuminati (or, in nazi versions, for the jews). You can get ample information about this bizarre conspiracy theory in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_%28conspiracy%29
The slightly less nutty right tend to consider the UN as a communist organization hostile to the US - much because of the security councils refusal to give the US its blessing for invading Iraq.
I'm personally not that fond of the UN, but I don't like it because it's corrupt and incapable of taking tough decisions, and because the way the decision process is designed UN troops hardly ever have sufficient mandate to do their job effectively. - VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Thanks for the link Whack, it was informative:
"Over the last 18 months to two years we've looked at over 300 cases and disciplined well over half of them"
"But your assistant secretary general for peacekeeping operations told the BBC that: "My operating presumption is that this is either a problem or a potential problem in every single one of our missions." "
This is my question to you. If you were a leader of a country, would you want the UN in there?
Personally I would not for the simple fact that they would terrorize the populace.
They have negated their effectiveness. I wills say that the UN in itself should be a wonderful thing, but it is not. The guy in charge of it is not effective and he is corrupt. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@volatilewhimsy:
1) Who is condoning this? I said in my post above that the UN needs to change its rules so that soldiers can be prosecuted even when they've returned to their home countries (some of which, it would seem, are not eager to help with the investigations).
2) Two wrongs don't make a right. It's not so that it's OK for US troops to rape and murder JUST BECAUSE UN troops also have committed atrocities. It's not so that if UN troops do bad things, we shouldn't criticise US troops doing bad things.
On the contrary, two wrongs make two wrongs, and BOTH need to be prosecuted. - VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Good post Stero.
"But you indicated in your post that "the UN . . . require[s] women to have sex with them in exchange for food." It reads as though you think this is a UN policy. Is that your opinion?"
Stated in the article, not an opnion and not a policy, but what is being practiced.
"Why then would one attribute the actions of those few who engage in such behavior while wearing the Blue Helmet as being the actions, or even the policy, of the UN?
Because they are not holding them responsible for their actions and sweeping it under the rug. If they were holding these ppl accountable there would be no story. - Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8"this is what I have come to expect from U.N. peacekeeping missions"
Along with national "peacekeeping" and military forces as well. :-(
But then again, how to solve the problem with the sort of people that do this from entering military or peacekeeping forces? As usual it's not a majority of people that engage in these sort of activities. Looking at criminal records may not be enough, because I wouldn't be surprised if they are screened for this and look OK, but it could be a form of behavior that only come to the light under psychological pressure. - graphmac1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's despicable and it goes on because of people in power letting it go to their head...!
- noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2FTA:
"The U.N.'s Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who will step down in January, promised more disciplinary action. However, little change has been seen since the start of the scandal. We can hope that in-coming Ban Ki-moon will provide the much-needed reform he's been promising.
It will be challenging. Just between February 2003 and October 2005 alone, there were 221 cases of sexual misconduct. Impunity was often the outcome. The U.N. peacekeepers are immune from local laws. Some countries don't even have sexual assault laws. In the end, the alleged suspect is often merely repatriated home. " -
Show 51 - 100 of 132 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is