UN Troops Do Nothing As Aid Workers Beaten and Gang Raped In South Sudan
A bunch of western aid workers were beaten and gang raped and one journalist murdered by South Sudanese soldiers and the United Nations peacekeepers nearby did nothing to intervene:
About 20 minutes later, a Quick Reaction Force of Ethiopians from the multinational U.N. mission was tasked to intervene, coordinating with South Sudan’s army chief of staff, Paul Malong, who was also sending soldiers. But the Ethiopian battalion stood down, according to the timeline. Malong’s troops eventually abandoned their intervention too because it took too long for the Quick Reaction Force to act.
The American who was released early in the assault and made it to the U.N. base said he also alerted U.N. staff. At around dusk, a U.N. worker he knew requested three different battalions to send a Quick Reaction Force.
“Everyone refused to go. Ethiopia, China, and Nepal. All refused to go,” he said. [Associated Press]
You can read more at the link, but why have peacekeepers if they are not going to keep the peace? This seems to be a reoccurring problem with United Nations troops. Considering that the ROK Army has peacekeepers in South Sudan it makes me wonder what they would do if faced with this same situation?
“Why have peacekeepers if they are not going to keep the peace?”
Perhaps the better question is, “Why don’t the peacekeepers keep the peace?”
Which is a very easy one to answer: because the UN pays the sending nations handsomely to deploy troops to these sh!t holes. In most cases, however, that money goes into the government coffers or into the pocket of whoever is leading the country. The troops don’t see any of that money in the way of improved equipment or additional pay, and have no interest in sticking their necks out to help out aid workers who the troops think are a bunch of fools for being there to begin with.
And by the way … 2015 contributions for UN peace keeping’s $8 billion budget:
United States (28.38%)
Japan (10.83%)
France (7.22%)
Germany (7.14%)
United Kingdom (6.68%)
China (6.64%)
Italy (4.45%)
Russian Federation (3.15%)
Canada (2.98%)
Spain (2.97%)
“Ethiopia, China, and Nepal”.
Hmmm… shit hole countries themselves, why would you expect anything from them?
UN is a joke. Western aid workers should refuse to go into Sudan and should just pull out when there’s no security guarantees from the UN.
So, so true.
A lot of people don’t understand (particularly those who point to the number of UN troops “donated” by developing and/or authoritarian countries, as though this contribution makes those countries fundamentally better) that each government contributing troops to a UN operation receives a certain amount in US dollars per soldier, per day. While western governments pay this money to the individual soldier, most other governments pocket the money. The reason you find (authoritarian and developing countries) on so many UN ops is not because of these countries’ commitment to maintaining global peace and security, but because it provides a steady influx of hard currency into the state coffers.
Overall, when “UN” troops misbehave, it’s because they’re members of the armies of such countries, placed in harm’s way so that their government can rake in money over their backs, possibly over their maimed or dead bodies.
Lots of unpleasant questions related to that one though, regarding the purpose of the UN and the cost/benefits equation.
How on earth could the UN guarantee anyone’s security anyway?
When they do it is an empty promise.
Example, Srebrenica.
LIMERICK
To help everyone, aid workers tried
but reality was sadly denied.
Instead of useless peacekeepers
bring racist grim reapers
to clean the mess up with black genocide.
But, but…..the US is much wealthier than the other countries. Why aren’t we paying more money, relative to our economy?
It’s sad all these other nations have to prop us up.