The UN Fails Freedom - Again

[Woodmonkey]

The UN Fails Freedom - Again


Washington, D.C. -- On Wednesday, August 9th, when Israel finally launched a major ground operation into Lebanon aimed at crushing Hezbollah terrorists, there was a collective gasp from the striped pants set at UN Headquarters in New York. But this offensive wouldn't have been necessary if the unaccountable, America-bashing, Jew-hating, tea sippers at the United Nations had the integrity to act in accord with their own charter.

Over a month ago, Hezbollah terrorists crossed the Lebanese border, kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and started a daily barrage of Iranian-supplied rockets, missiles, even sophisticated unmanned aerial vehicles against Israeli towns and cities. All but ignored by the so-called “western media” -- more than 1,500 Israeli casualties inflicted by Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah's “rain of steel.”

For thirty days, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) responded with air and naval strikes and limited ground operations against known and suspected Hezbollah positions in Lebanon -- and were pummeled in the press for a “disproportionate response.” The government of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, naively hoping for a “forceful international reaction” to Hezbollah's aggression, adopted a “go-slow” approach and reigned in the IDF. To some, Mr. Olmert's caution appeared wise. It was not.

On August 4, Kofi Annan's flaks leaked word to willing press puppets that a “diplomatic breakthrough” had been achieved to “end the conflict in Lebanon.” In fact -- Washington and Paris had reached only a tentative agreement on the general shape and size of a multi-national force (MNF) to “supplement” the Lebanese Army and the ineffective UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). But on August 8th, Mr. Olmert learned what he should have known all along -- the UN will not stand up to Iranian supported and directed terrorism.

Four days after promoting a UN accord that would “end the bloodshed,” the deal was dead -- shot in the head by Arab “leaders” who viewed a powerful, well-armed, European-led intervention force -- along the lines of Kosovo in 1999 and today in Afghanistan -- to be an “affront to Lebanese sovereignty.” The new UN proposal: an immediate cease-fire, withdrawal of all Israeli troops, followed by the introduction of 15,000 Lebanese Army soldiers along the border, “backed up” by the same UNIFIL contingent that had done nothing to stop Hezbollah aggression in the first place.

If Mr. Olmert was surprised at this outcome, he shouldn't be. It's just the latest in a long string of failed UN initiatives emanating from the most expensive debating club on the planet. Since Israel withdrew its forces from Lebanon on 24 May 2000, there have been 40 UN Security Council Resolutions on "the Situation in the Middle East" -- an average of one every two months. This year there have already been six -- and none of them are worth the paper they are printed on to Hezbollah -- or their masters in Tehran.

As Tom Kilgannon points out in his new book, “Diplomatic Divorce: Why America Should End Its Love Affair With the United Nations,” the UNIFIL contingent now being so highly touted in the big blue building in Turtle Bay, was established by UN Security Council 425 in 1978 “for the purpose of confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring international peace and security and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area.” Like so much else of what the UN does, it has been a miserable, impotent failure.

Based in Naqoura, Lebanon and commanded by French Major-General Alain Pellegrini, UNIFIL did indeed accurately report on the Israeli withdrawal -- but did nothing to stop Iran and Syria from turning Hezbollah into the best armed terrorist force in the world. With an annual budget of $97.5 million and contingents from China, Ghana, India, Ireland, Italy and Poland, the blue helmets turned a blind eye to tens of thousands of Iranian weapons, rockets, anti-tank mines and missiles being trucked across the Syrian border into the Biqa' Valley and offloaded from ships in Hezbollah-controlled Lebanese ports like Tyre. A month into a shooting war, the UN has yet to condemn Syrian and Iranian complicity in the carnage.

For proponents of “multilateralism,” the present conflict has been a missed opportunity to prove that the “international community” could respond in a coherent, forceful manner to a serious threat to peace. Unprovoked aggression, like the Hezbollah attacks that precipitated the present conflict, is after all, the raison d'etre for which the United Nations was created. Yet, the same day that the bodies of Iranian Revolutionary Guards were found among dead Hezbollah terrorists, a French Foreign Ministry spokesman proclaimed that, “Iran is a stabilizing factor in the Middle East.”

Confronted with diplomatic dithering and “globalist” lunacy such as this, the Israelis have belatedly decided to do what could not be done in the corridors of confusion at the UN -- to crush Hezbollah's military power. It's likely to be a costly endeavor.

History and war are cruel pedants. Those who know too little of the former are likely to have too much of the latter. The Olmert government has learned the hard lesson that the UN can't be counted on in the clinch. Hopefully, as we gauge Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, Washington has come to the same conclusion.

The Source

[milmor_1]

I have to agree and disagree with this report on the following grounds.

a. The UN has failed to control Hezbollah.

b. The UNIFIL troops on the ground have NOT failed.

The following details put both points into perspectiev.

a. The UN established UNIFIL under a weak mandate with weak rules of engagement.

b. The UNIFIL troops act as do any troops under these orders. To do otherwise would be illegal. They are soldiers they do as they are ordered.

Some examples of this weak mandate are as follows,

a. Any weapons confiscated of armed elements were returned to these elements three days after confiscation.

b. If heavy firepower was required to be fired by UNIFIL Troops, permission had to be granted by UN HQ in New York. (What a farce).

Some statements that are made in the above report with regards to UNIFIL need to be clarified.

a.Based in Naqoura, Lebanon and commanded by French Major-General Alain Pellegrini, UNIFIL did indeed accurately report on the Israeli withdrawal -- but did nothing to stop Iran and Syria from turning Hezbollah into the best armed terrorist force in the world. With an annual budget of $97.5 million and contingents from China, Ghana, India, Ireland, Italy and Poland, the blue helmets turned a blind eye to tens of thousands of Iranian weapons, rockets, anti-tank mines and missiles being trucked across the Syrian border into the Biqa' Valley and offloaded from ships in Hezbollah-controlled Lebanese ports like Tyre.

This statement is fundamentally incorrect for the following reasons.

UNIFIL's Area of operations does NOT extend to the Beqaa Valley, or Tyre.
(There are UN Admin posts in Tyre.)

As I have said the UNIFIL mandate does NOT allow for the destruction of confiscated weapons. (NOT the Troops on the Grounds Fault)

UNIFIL Troops have been operating with their hands tied behind their back's, so to say that "they" are a failure is false, the UN itself has failed their own troops. The proof of the pudding is in the eating as they say, the following figures of the casualties taken by UNIFIL over the years show how these troops have sacrificed their lives for a weak mandate.

Fatalities 249 troops
2 military observers
2 international civilian staff
4 local staff

257 Total

From a personal perspective I would like it noted that Ireland (which currently only have a small admin input into UNIFIL) experienced the loss of 47 soldiers in South Lebanon. One soldier is still listed as missing in action almost 25 years later.

As with most unconnected political reporters it is easy to attribute the blame to troops on the ground for failures of the Commanders. I cannot allow the peacekeepers in UNIFIL to suffer the balme of such people.

Give them (as I have said in another thread) the Mandate and the rules of engagement to enforce it. They must also be given the wherewithall (the logistical support) to sustain the mandate, and that includes the political support to back them up.

This is the current mandate (read it and see how weak it is)

According to Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) of 19 March 1978, UNIFIL was established to:

Confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon;

Restore international peace and security;

Assist the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area.

Most recently the mandate of UNIFIL was extended until 31 August 2006 by Security Council resolution 1697 of 31 July 2006.

Restore international peace and security. (with 2500 troops is that asking the impossible or what)

Assist the government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area.

The Lebanese Government has to be willing to do this. It is obvious that they either didnt want to do so, or just couldnt. The UNIFIL troops can only comply with this element of the mandate if the Lebanese Government meet their responsibilities.

I could write forever on this matter but the shortest way to end (even if I repeat myself) is to simply say;

Lay of the troops who are deployed.

get on to the politicians to act and support the Troops.

[Woodmonkey]

I was hoping you would weigh in here. Thank you for spelling it out like this.

Originally Posted by milmor_1

Lay of the troops who are deployed.

get on to the politicians to act and support the Troops.

Yes!