What the Heck?! Thread (Closed)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Equation

Lieutenant General
Richard Fontaines article is well thoughted and right on. While I understand the skepticism after eight years of Obamas quazi tyrannical role, that doesn't change the heart and soul of America. To have a desire to save the unborn, and innocent, serve our God, and fellow mankind is quite unique among the nations, and we have invested plenty of blood and gold to free the oppressed.
.

What about freeing the oppressed from those religious institutions that brain washes the gullible masses into believing that the church can act as a state? The LGBT community and women's rights to control their body are getting hammered each and every day by these zealots until EVERYBODY is under the thumb of their god. o_O:rolleyes:
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
On the other hand, there are many positives about America that must be considered, for the sake of balance and intellectual honesty. Just to head off the wise guys/gals at the pass, I'll admit they are relative to others, and not absolute. A partial list of the positives;
  • America render humanitarian aid throughout the world. No one else has done as much, not even close
  • The American people is the most generous in giving to help others
  • America welcomes immigrants, and unique among nations, she assimilate them into her society. Not perfect to be sure, but better than others
  • America hold high ideals and often can't meet them. But, the people always get back up and try again
  • America's tolerance of different religions is second to none
  • America has many ills, in all area of human endeavors. Some very major faults. But, the nation places those ugly sores right out in the open, and allow people everywhere to opine and criticize.
  • America is a sore loser, but a generous winner. Opposite of countries like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Asia is lucky it was the Americans who won WW2 and not the Japanese
  • America doesn't covet other nation's land, even as the sole superpower it doesn't engage in conquest for empire (if it did, Canada would be in big, big trouble)
  • Even after all the self-inflicted wounds, poll after poll show America is still favorably viewed by most of the world's people and nations
Bottom line is even with all the admitted faults, Americans are generally decent and straightforward, even if some of our leaders are venal and corrupt.

Well allow me to point out otherwise, now this is NOT a knock on you or anyone who shares your view. Bottom line is many people in the world are decent folks, but American bad leaders will bring the rest of us down because we refuse to get rid of these elitist Good Ole Boy systems out of some kind of entitlement.

  • America render humanitarian aid throughout the world. No one else has done as much, not even close


China has built the ancient Silk Road trade and not to mention giving generous loans to BOTH undeveloped countries and OECD countries to assist them with their economies. And China has been doing this without all the media and soft power hype.


  • The American people is the most generous in giving to help others

Who doesn't it's not like Americans are the only one's doing it?


  • America welcomes immigrants, and unique among nations, she assimilate them into her society. Not perfect to be sure, but better than others

China welcomes expats and others into their country without murdering millions of Native Americans for their land while using African slavery to develop it.


  • America hold high ideals and often can't meet them. But, the people always get back up and try again

China's been doing this for thousands of years, nothing new. We just don't brag about it on soft power like Americans do.


  • America's tolerance of different religions is second to none

Not really, there's an increasing xenophobia and islamophobia been going on since 9/11, especially coming from those snobbish and rude religious institutions.


  • America has many ills, in all area of human endeavors. Some very major faults. But, the nation places those ugly sores right out in the open, and allow people everywhere to opine and criticize.

Only the selective faults that are easier to debate instead of the real root causes. Black Lives matter is an example. Again this is just plain promoting American exeptionalism.

  • America is a sore loser, but a generous winner. Opposite of countries like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Asia is lucky it was the Americans who won WW2 and not the Japanese

Tell that to the Koreans and Vietnamese. Remember a good American patriot must fight "communism" anywhere in the world, human carnage be damn.
No the American elites were just taking advantage of the situation to fatten their interest, while using scholars and soft power to hide it.


  • America doesn't covet other nation's land, even as the sole superpower it doesn't engage in conquest for empire (if it did, Canada would be in big, big trouble)

Still occupying on Native American soil, and than make claims that God gave them that land to build an empire upon. Trail of Tears be damn.


  • Even after all the self-inflicted wounds, poll after poll show America is still favorably viewed by most of the world's people and nations

All thanks to soft power and Hollywood. China is also favored by many people of other countries. It's mostly in America and the west where you see the religious institutions are still trying to paint the PRC in a bad light.

Sorry to sound rude, but somebody has to put realty and historical perspective back into place.
 

delft

Brigadier
Not really OT, and also not really Breaking News:
My Dutch newspaper NRC,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, published last week an interview with a professor from Utrecht University, Bas van Bavel (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
) about his research in Free Markets in former times: Iraq from the sixth to the eleventh century, Italy from the eleventh to the sixteenth century, the Low Countries from the thirteenth to the eighteenth century. It is called The Invisible Hand? (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
).
I have bought the book but have not yet received it. In the interview he says that in each case after a period of disturbance the development of a free market leads to a relatively rapid economic growth after which a rich minority is able to acquire political power to enable it to enrich itself further while the majority impoverishes. He considers that US reached that point of change in the 1960's and the EU in the 1990's.
That should explain the current extremely peculiar election circus. :oops:
And it explains why EU and TTIP and TPP are now failing.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
It's OK to be criticized and chastised by the critical and cynical, its not OK to allow them to break our spirit, and negate the freedoms that we celebrate and want to share.
Brat, here's an example of a senior politician's faux outrage over "human rights" that makes Americans critical and cynical. Senator Cardin's grandstanding has less to do with "human rights" and more with seizing an opportunity for personal gains in a Presidential election year. How do we know that? He's the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and didn't veto weapon sales to such stellar human rights bastions as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Vietnam, but somehow he couldn't in good conscience approve weapon sales to the Philippines? It doesn't pass the smell test, and I'll wager if we scratched the surface, we'll find a politician for sale and using the arms deal as an opportunity for political gains. It's also the reason I argue all politicians should get two terms, one in office and then one in jail.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. State Department halted the planned sale of some 26,000 assault rifles to the Philippines' national police after Senator Ben Cardin said he would oppose it, Senate aides told Reuters on Monday.

Aides said Cardin, the top Democrat on the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was reluctant for the United States to provide the weapons given concerns about human rights violations in the Philippines.

News of the thwarting of the weapons sale was met with disappointment among the Philippine police and government on Tuesday, but they said alternative suppliers would be found. Police spokesman Dionardo Carlos said the Philippines had yet to be notified about the sale being stopped.

The relationship between the United States and the Philippines, a long-time ally, has been complicated lately by President Rodrigo Duterte's angry reaction to criticism from Washington of his violent battle to rid the country of illegal drugs.

More than 2,300 people have been killed in police operations or by suspected vigilantes in connection with the anti-narcotics campaign since Duterte took office on June 30.

The U.S. State Department informs Congress when international weapons sales are in the works. Aides said Foreign Relations committee staff informed State that Cardin would oppose the deal during the department's prenotification process for the sale of 26,000-27,000 assault rifles, stopping the deal.

U.S. State Department officials did not comment.

Ronald dela Rosa, the Philippine national police chief and staunch supporter of the war on drugs, said he liked the American rifle, but suggested China as an alternative small-arms provider.

"We really wanted the U.S. rifles because these are reliable," he told broadcaster ABS-CBN.

"But if the sale will not push through, we will find another source, maybe from China."

In October, Duterte told U.S. President Barack Obama to "go to hell" and said the United States had refused to sell some weapons to his country, but he did not care because Russia and China were willing suppliers.

According to some U.S. officials, Washington has been doing its best to ignore Duterte's rhetoric and not provide him with a pretext for more outbursts.

An open break with the Philippines could create problems for the United States in a region where China's influence has grown.
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Well allow me to point out otherwise, now this is NOT a knock on you or anyone who shares your view. Bottom line is many people in the world are decent folks, but American bad leaders will bring the rest of us down because we refuse to get rid of these elitist Good Ole Boy systems out of some kind of entitlement.

  • America render humanitarian aid throughout the world. No one else has done as much, not even close


China has built the ancient Silk Road trade and not to mention giving generous loans to BOTH undeveloped countries and OECD countries to assist them with their economies. And China has been doing this without all the media and soft power hype.


  • The American people is the most generous in giving to help others

Who doesn't it's not like Americans are the only one's doing it?


  • America welcomes immigrants, and unique among nations, she assimilate them into her society. Not perfect to be sure, but better than others

China welcomes expats and others into their country without murdering millions of Native Americans for their land while using African slavery to develop it.


  • America hold high ideals and often can't meet them. But, the people always get back up and try again

China's been doing this for thousands of years, nothing new. We just don't brag about it on soft power like Americans do.


  • America's tolerance of different religions is second to none

Not really, there's an increasing xenophobia and islamophobia been going on since 9/11, especially coming from those snobbish and rude religious institutions.


  • America has many ills, in all area of human endeavors. Some very major faults. But, the nation places those ugly sores right out in the open, and allow people everywhere to opine and criticize.

Only the selective faults that are easier to debate instead of the real root causes. Black Lives matter is an example. Again this is just plain promoting American exeptionalism.

  • America is a sore loser, but a generous winner. Opposite of countries like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Asia is lucky it was the Americans who won WW2 and not the Japanese

Tell that to the Koreans and Vietnamese. Remember a good American patriot must fight "communism" anywhere in the world, human carnage be damn.
No the American elites were just taking advantage of the situation to fatten their interest, while using scholars and soft power to hide it.


  • America doesn't covet other nation's land, even as the sole superpower it doesn't engage in conquest for empire (if it did, Canada would be in big, big trouble)

Still occupying on Native American soil, and than make claims that God gave them that land to build an empire upon. Trail of Tears be damn.


  • Even after all the self-inflicted wounds, poll after poll show America is still favorably viewed by most of the world's people and nations

All thanks to soft power and Hollywood. China is also favored by many people of other countries. It's mostly in America and the west where you see the religious institutions are still trying to paint the PRC in a bad light.

Sorry to sound rude, but somebody has to put realty and historical perspective back into place.

thank you Master Equation for illustrating the Stoneman's excellent defense of the heart and soul of this Great and Blessed Nation! If you were in Russia, North Korea, China, and numerous other nations, and had offered a similar criticism of?? take your pick??? Russia, North Korea, China, you would be off the internet, likely arrested, tried for treason, in North Korea you would have already been Shot along with your family members, or worse.

I'm rather certain that if you really thought America was as bad as you say, you would have "fled" the country,,,,,the fact that you are still here is proof positive that you love your "choosen" country, and I have no doubt that in your heart of hearts that if the AFB or any other Sino Defenser were in some grave danger, you would be the first to come to our assistance.

Further I wanted to thank you for the kindness that you have shown to a fellow Sino Defenser who was going through a serious health crisis, and you were there and met that brother with kindness and concern,,,,, for that I pray that God Himself, will reveal Himself to you and your's, in order that you might inherit all the Blessings He and He alone has in store for you!

Love you as a Brother my Good Friend! and if you are ever in need or danger, day or night, you call or PM the Air Force Brat!

I found an early inspiration for myself in you, in that there is NO ONE on the Sino Defense Forum who is more kind or generous with their LIKES! I continue to work to "catch up" to you, but I know I never will!

Mods feel free to delete/move/edit this post, its really just for my bud anyway!
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
thank you Master Equation for illustrating the Stoneman's excellent defense of the heart and soul of this Great and Blessed Nation! If you were in Russia, North Korea, China, and numerous other nations, and had offered a similar criticism of?? take your pick??? Russia, North Korea, China, you would be off the internet, likely arrested, tried for treason, in North Korea you would have already been Shot along with your family members, or worse.

I'm rather certain that if you really thought America was as bad as you say, you would have "fled" the country,,,,,the fact that you are still here is proof positive that you love your "choosen" country, and I have no doubt that in your heart of hearts that if the AFB or any other Sino Defenser were in some grave danger, you would be the first to come to our assistance.
QUOTE]

You mean kind of like why the US government are going after Edward Snowden and Julian Assange because they didn't march to the dear elitist tune? This isn't a comparison about each countries "heart and soul" blind patriotism. If you are naïve (which I seriously doubt) to the historical oppression of America and just sticking to the "God" is everything narrative robot crowd point of view than you my friend are not ready to change the country for the better. Now with that said that doesn't mean I hate you or Blackstone by any means, it's that we have a different way of looking at things. I am very comfortable in my skin and opinions, therefore no religious institution cheerleading needed, thank you very much.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
You mean kind of like why the US government are going after Edward Snowden and Julian Assange because they didn't march to the dear elitist tune? This isn't a comparison about each countries "heart and soul" blind patriotism.
Edward Snowden is, at the very least and by his own admission, guilty of mishandling classified government material. He might or might not also be guilty of treason, but we wouldn't know that unless and until he returns home and stand trial before a jury of his peers. Whatever else happens, Snowden is protected by his Constitutional rights and the US government must observe that. Of course, I wouldn't be completely brokenhearted if he slips on Moscow ice one dark January night and break his neck. Just kidding! Just kidding! I'm not always for the execution of probable traitors overseas, not if we could spirit them home for prosecution under the law. Julian Assange, on the other hand, is a foreign national doing harm to US interests, so I support his arrest and trial in fair and open court.
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
Edward Snowden is, at the very least and by his own admission, guilty of mishandling classified government material. He might or might not also be guilty of treason, but we wouldn't know that unless and until he returns home and stand trial before a jury of his peers. Whatever else happens, Snowden is protected by his Constitutional rights and the US government must observe that. Of course, I wouldn't be completely brokenhearted if he slips on Moscow ice one dark January night and break his neck. Just kidding! Just kidding! I'm not always for the execution of probable traitors overseas, not if we could spirit them home for prosecution under the law. Julian Assange, on the other hand, is a foreign national doing harm to US interests, so I support his arrest and trial in fair and open court.

He's a dissident at the very least looking after the welfare of the American people over an oppressive government that keeps on skirting the Constitution under the disguise of "national security".

Julian Assange is being targeted because he had exposed the wrongs on the American elitists, in which they put up a phony prosecution of sexual misconduct. Trump did a lot worse, but he's still walking around as a free elitist and "grab them by the P....y" good ole boys way of treating women.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
There's a saying imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and neocons/liberal imperialists are tipping their hats at Beijing. Harvard fellow Dan Altman thinks "salami slicing" weapon sales to Taiwan is the answer to sell Taiwan Province weapons, because no single sale would cause Beijing to bring down the hammer. I'd like to point out two points of interests: 1) Altman and his echo chamber basically conceded by 2020-ish, the balance of power would favor Beijing to the point where US must finesse to sell weapon packages to the renegade province. 2) Altman and his echo chamber still don't appreciate the comprehensive national power China has now, and will gain in the future.

If Altman and echo chamber think salami slicing is the best way to sell weapons to Taiwan Province, then they might as well as throw up their hands now, because that dog don't hunt. A different strategy is needed. The reason is Beijing can take a page from Washington's favorite script of economically sanctioning specific companies and their subsidiaries to force policy compliance.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, and will learn to perfect it in the future. So, it's back to the drawing board for Altman and echo chamber.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Imagine that in 2020, China learns that the United States will soon deliver an unusually large and comprehensive arms package to Taiwan. Determined to continue growing its military advantage – and therefore its leverage – vis-à-vis Taiwan, China declares a red line against the delivery, threatening severe consequences if the United States proceeds. That announcement ignites a standoff in the Taiwan Strait. Each side mobilizes its forces and prepares for the possibility of armed conflict.

This hypothetical scenario captures one of the most likely crises that could break out between China and the United States in the coming years. Because Sino-American relations may come to define the international landscape of the 21st Century, it is essential to anticipate and, if possible, avert exactly this sort of flare-up, which could divert that critical relationship down the wrong path. Fortunately, this particular danger is largely preventable through subtle changes in policy that require no major sacrifices to the American national interest.

To avoid a future crisis with China over arms sales, the United States should dispense with the “arms package” approach to arms sales to Taiwan and instead conduct the sales in a steady stream of small increments. Nobel-prize winning strategist Thomas Schelling
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
“salami tactics” to describe this approach, a reference to slicing off an objective in a series of gradual steps rather than all at once. Using salami tactics does not mean selling fewer arms. It means spreading out the same sales across a series of transactions that are each individually too small to provoke a violent Chinese response. This approach would have two core principles: no large arms packages, no long lulls between arms sales.


Adopting salami tactics would represent a marked change in U.S. policy. In 1992, the George H. W. Bush Administration
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that included 150 F-16A/B fighters, exactly the sort of unusually large package that could one day trigger a crisis with an increasingly powerful and assertive China. More recent arms packages have been smaller, but still larger than necessary. In 2008, the United States
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to Taiwan, a package that included Patriot missiles, Apache attack helicopters, and upgrades to the Taiwanese Air Force’s F-16s and F-5s. In protest, China suspended military-to-military ties with the United States. In 2010, President Obama
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
featuring Patriot missiles, Blackhawk helicopters, Harpoon anti-ship missiles, and additional F-16 upgrades. China condemned the sales and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. In 2014, the United States approved the sale of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. It is currently
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to announce up to several years’ worth of sales together.


Last December, the United States announced a $1.83 billion arms package for Taiwan that included two Perry-class frigates, amphibious assault vehicles, anti-tank missiles, surface-to-air missiles, and upgrades to a variety of other weapon systems. Predictably,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, with a spokesman declaring, “We resolutely oppose sales of weaponry or military technology to Taiwan by any country in any form or using any excuse.” China has yet to put its full power behind attempting to halt an arms sale, but that may change as China begins to flex its newfound muscles.


The question is: why combine these sales into one larger package that is so much more likely to provoke a stronger Chinese response? Adopting salami tactics would have meant splitting up the sales into multiple transactions announced and delivered separately, bringing the price tag for each well below $1 billion. There is simply no need to treat as one package a set of unrelated weapon systems. Indeed, there is no need to sell large numbers of the same weapon system all at once.

Salami tactics can help to avoid a crisis in which China learns of an impending arms deal and declares a red line against it. China would find it difficult to threaten war over the sale of a few surface-to-air missiles or a single frigate, especially after tolerating a similar delivery only months beforehand. How could such a large threat be credible for such a small infraction? Rather than declare a red line it cannot enforce over yet another modest and ordinary sale, China would more likely opt not to set one at all.

Just as important as avoiding large arms packages is avoiding long periods without any arms sales. A prolonged suspension of arms sales, even one that begins for reasons other than assuaging China, will gradually solidify into a precedent. Once a no-sales precedent is in place, then even a small sale after ten years of none will become more provocative than it would be today. China might seriously consider accepting grave risks to uphold a new status quo of zero arms sales to Taiwan.

Taiwan will sometimes need to quietly agree to larger multi-year deals so that U.S. arms manufacturers know, for instance, to keep a particular production line open. However, when this proves unavoidable, the United States can still announce and deliver these sales in increments. Because China would find it difficult to threaten to go to war in response to rumors or media reports of private U.S.-Taiwan arrangements, China is far more likely to make any red lines contingent on announcements or, more likely, actual deliveries. In short, to adopt salami tactics would mean choosing strategic benefits over administrative and commercial inconveniences.

The key to the salami tactics approach is avoiding any single act that so harms Chinese interests – as defined by Beijing – that China would seriously consider using or threatening force to prevent it. Right now, U.S. policy draws too heavily on the arms package approach and consequently risks just that. Opportunities to prevent serious crises without sacrificing the national interest do not come along often. It is vital to take advantage of them.
 
Last edited:

Blackstone

Brigadier
China needs to up its game in the UN Peacekeeping operations. Refusal to appeals for aid is disturbing.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

U.N. Chief Fires His Top Peacekeeping Commander in South Sudan

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday fired his top peacekeeping commander in South Sudan, following the release of a damning internal investigation that faulted the top U.N. brass for failing to come to the aid of thousands of civilians.

The U.N. peacekeeping mission in South Sudan fell woefully short of its obligation to protect civilians last summer as fighting between government and rebel forces blew up a fragile peace agreement and pitched Juba into chaos for four bloody July days, according to the scathing inquiry.

United Nations civilian and military commanders were caught unprepared for the fighting, despite multiple warning signs that the capital was headed back into fighting. When the bullets and mortars started flying, U.N. blue helmets abandoned their posts and hunkered down in their compound, leaving thousands of abandoned civilians and international aid workers to fend for themselves.

“The special investigation found that a lack of leadership on the part of key senior mission personnel cuminated in a chaotic and ineffective response to the violence,” according to an executive summary of the report.

Following the report’s release, Ban’s office issued a statement saying the U.N. chief “is deeply distressed by these findings.” His spokesman, Stéphane Dujarric, said the U.N. chief “has asked for the immediate replacement for the force commander,” Lt. Gen. Johnson Mogoa Kimani Ondieki of Kenya. The U.N. chief is considering further action.

Since declaring its independence in the summer of 2011, South Sudan has struggled to form a nation out of a tapestry of diverse ethnic groups. The country has been wracked by violence since December 2013, when forces loyal to President Salva Kiir, a Dinka, opened fire on followers of his former vice president, Riek Machar, a Nuer, setting off a civil war that has had troubling ethnic dimensions.

Earlier this year, an internationally backed peace deal set the stage for Machar, along with more than 1,200 fighters, to return to the capital. But the pact unraveled on July 8, as the capital of Juba erupted into three days violence and chaos as rival forces exchanged fire. The fighting — which left more than 300 dead — marked the total collapse of a fragile peace agreement. It also exposed the vulnerability of U.N. peacekeepers, who came under fierce criticism for abandoning their posts at the height of the fighting and for refusing orders to help humanitarian aid workers.

The U.N. has posted some 1,800 peacekeepers — from China, Ethiopia, India, and Nepal — in Juba. Efforts by the U.N. Security Council to reinforce the troops deployed to the mission, known as UNMISS, have been stalled by the South Sudanese government, which has expressed serious misgivings about the buildup of international forces.

In response to critics, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon appointed retired Dutch General Patrick Cammaert to carry out an “independent special investigation” into the U.N. response. The report reveals deep unease about a provision of the peace deal that resulted in Machar and his forces returning to Juba in April to begin the process of forming a power-sharing government in South Sudan.

The U.N. mission’s top official, as well as security experts, raised “strong objections” to deploying Machar’s troops within a kilometer of the U.N. headquarters and two U.N. camps for displaced South Sudanese civilians. They feared doing so would place U.N. personnel and displaced civilians in the crossfire if the rival forces started fighting — but Machar insisted.

The U.N. mission, meanwhile, did not take the warning signs sufficiently seriously.

“Despite the early warning that fighting would take place near U.N. House, the mission did not probably prepare for … foreseeable scenarios,” according to the report’s 10-page summary. For instance, U.N. commanders failed to reinforce defensive positions around U.N. facilities with enough firepower to counter small arms fire, “severely limiting the mission’s ability to respond when fighting with heavy weapons started.”

As fighting intensified, South Sudanese government forces deployed artillery, tanks, and helicopters into the fight.

“Government and opposition forces fired indiscriminately, striking U.N. facilities and POC [Protection of Civilian] sites,” according to the report. “In three days of fighting, two Chinese peacekeepers were killed and several injured, 182 buildings on the U.N. House compound were struck by bullets, mortars and rocket propelled grenades (RPGs).”

The U.N. report reserves some of its sharpest criticism for the peacekeepers who ignored a call for help from 70 civilians, including five U.N. personnel and international aid workers. Some were raped, tortured, and beaten by government troops at Hotel Terrain on July 11. The U.N. Joint Operations Center made multiple requests to peacekeeping contingents, including troops from China and Ethiopia, to send a rapid reaction force to the hotel. Each time, they refused.

Even after the government’s highest-ranking general provided a liaison officer to help the U.N. gain safe passage to the hotel, “no response team materialized.” Three and a half hours after the hotel attack began, South Sudanese security forces extracted all but three survivors. One South Sudanese civilian had already been executed.

One of the three female humanitarian aid workers remaining at the hotel later phoned the U.N. to say they had been left behind. But a U.N. security officer who took the call “was dismissive of her appeal and did not call her back when her phone credit expired,” according to the report summary. In the end, a private security company contracted by an international relief agency rescued the women.

Months after the crisis, U.N. peacekeepers “continue to display a risk averse posture unsuited to protecting civilians from sexual violence and other opportunistic attacks,” the report found.

In one particularly egregious case, U.N. troops and police stood by impassively as attackers assaulted a woman just a few yards in front of a U.N. protection site. “Despite the woman’s screams, they did not react,” the report said. The assault was stopped only after U.N. civilian staff officers “intervened and prevented a further assault.”

The investigators were unable to verify separate allegations that peacekeepers had failed to intervene to stop sexual assaults of women during the July violence in Juba. “While these incidents of sexual violence most certainly occurred, the special investigation was unable to verify the allegations regarding the peacekeepers’ response,” the report stated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top