A Definite Change In Policy
The ABC reports that the UN isn’t going to take it anymore:
French and UN helicopters have attacked forces loyal to Ivory Coast’s incumbent leader, Laurent Gbagbo.
Mr Gbagbo’s presidential palace and residence were hit, along with military camps used by pro-Gbagbo forces, in what UN chief Ban Ki-moon said was a mission of self-defence.
The French military said its action “aimed to neutralise heavy weapons positions in barracks and armoured military vehicles equipped with cannons and rocket launchers”.
After Srebrenica a lot of people have been advocating that the UN Peacekeepers be allowed the support needed to defend themselves and civilians, and not just be a symbol. This is the first time I can remember the UN actually reacting to threats with force.
6 comments
Good to see that the UN has grown a pair.
They finally realized that no one wants to be a target because they are wearing a baby-blue beanie, and a lot of countries are refusing to offer troops for peacekeeping missions under the old rules.
But you’ll note that they only use the new rules with countries like the Ivory Coast that don’t have a real professional military or a powerful patron state. UNIFIL in southern Lebanon is definitely still under the old rules — Israel can bomb and shell them with impunity and the reaction is, “de nada!”. The sigil of UNIFIL ought to be the Black Knight from Monty Python… “it’s just a flesh wound!” Uhm, yeah.
– Badtux the Rules Penguin
It’s about time that the rules of engagement were standardized for all UN missions.
Yeah, I can see that happening. The RWNJ’s who are convinced the blue helmets are going to invade America and force us to gay-marry each other ANY MINUTE NOW would go nuts at the thought…
– Badtux the “I’ll buy tin foil futures if it happens tho!” Penguin
I know that my command steadfastly refused to have any of its people assigned to UN missions, even though a significant portion of us were linguists, many certified in multiple languages. The command felt that the risk of capture was too high to risk it, and the UN didn’t permit enough protection to prevent it. There was no problem with us getting killed, but they didn’t want us captured.
The Israelis have long targeted UN sites under the opinion that they would be used as “refuge” for the “enemy”. I have my own personal reason for my anger against the Israeli government that goes back to action during the ’67 attack on their neighbors. At least they were semi-competent back then, these days these just blow things up.
The UN should be using ground to air and ground to ground missile systems to protect their people, but the US would still veto those reasonable precautions.
Getting the UN to even complain about harassment is a long standing problem. Maybe the new Secretary General will institute some changes. Of course, if he does, the Repubs will go nuts.