• S. Sudan allows fighters to rape women in lieu of wages: UN
    26 replies, posted
[t]http://www.smh.com.au/content/dam/images/g/n/h/e/5/a/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gnh7zr.png/1457758608375.jpg[/t] [quote]GENEVA: South Sudan has encouraged fighters to rape women in place of wages, while children have been burnt alive, the UN said on Friday, calling it one of the world’s most “horrendous” human rights situations. Grotesque rights violations could amount to war crimes, said a report on the world’s youngest country from the United Nations human rights office. The UN findings coincided with an Amnesty International report saying government forces deliberately suffocated to death more than 60 men and boys by stuffing them into a baking hot shipping container. After gaining independence from Sudan in 2011, South Sudan erupted into civil war in December 2013, setting off a cycle of retaliatory killings that have split the poverty-stricken, landlocked country along ethnic lines. The UN said it had evidence that fighters from pro-government militia which fight alongside the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) are compensated under an agreement of ‘do what you can and take what you can[/quote] More in article: [url]http://www.dawn.com/news/1245187/s-sudan-allows-fighters-to-rape-women-in-lieu-of-wages-un[/url] [url]http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ani/south-sudan-allowed-soldiers-to-rape-civilians-in-civil-war-says-un-report-116031200364_1.html[/url] [url]http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-business/south-sudan-forces-raped-and-killed-civilians-un-report-says-20160311-gnh7zr.html[/url] [url]http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/u-n--accuses-south-sudan-forces-of-campaign-of-rape-and-killing/42015052[/url] [url=https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&gl=uk&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=south+sudan&oq=south+sudan&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j0l9j43i53.58489.59776.0.59901.11.7.0.4.4.0.103.435.6j1.7.0...0.0...1ac.1.D6FvGYDqyUQ#q=south+sudan&hl=en&gl=uk&authuser=0&tbm=vid&tbs=qdr:d]Various links showing SOME 18+ footage[/url]
Jesus Christ,what are they going to do next?
[QUOTE=Sgt.Kickass;49917712]Jesus Christ,what are they going to do next?[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/FJ5jBpZ.png[/IMG] get your shit together and do something man
[QUOTE]South Sudan has encouraged fighters to rape women in place of wages, while children have been burnt alive[/QUOTE] Holy shit, UN, this is [I]almost[/I] as bad as the lewd chinese girl cartoons!
"Grotesque rights violations could amount to war crimes, said a report on the world’s youngest country from the United Nations human rights office." [I]Could?[/I]
When was the last time the UN has actually done anything to enforce human rights?
[QUOTE=_Axel;49917903]When was the last time the UN has actually done anything to enforce human rights?[/QUOTE] Is there anything UN can actually do to enforce stuff? Do they have any power besides sending angry letters at all?
[QUOTE=rndgenerator;49917906]Is there anything UN can actually do to enforce stuff? Do they have any power besides sending angry letters at all?[/QUOTE] No, but this is a good thing when you consider what they consider to be a battle worth fighting.
[QUOTE=rndgenerator;49917906]Is there anything UN can actually do to enforce stuff? Do they have any power besides sending angry letters at all?[/QUOTE] Apart from trade embargoes, the security council can authorise a peacekeeping mission, usually made up of troops from a coalition of countries. It's not like they're completely powerless, just ineffective.
[QUOTE=rndgenerator;49917906]Is there anything UN can actually do to enforce stuff? Do they have any power besides sending angry letters at all?[/QUOTE] They have the security council which has been beefed up lately in terms of autonomous military power but they're still gonna be tied up in red tape.
Isn't UN peacekeeping & defensive organization? They don't attack, just hold the ground
[QUOTE=Fourier;49918211]Isn't UN peacekeeping & defensive organization? They don't attack, just hold the ground[/QUOTE] "Jokes on you this is what we always meant we'd do" Fuck the UN.
[QUOTE=_Axel;49917903]When was the last time the UN has actually done anything to enforce human rights?[/QUOTE] Um, except all the time by sending Peacekeepers to safeguard communities, give refuge and distribute medical aid etc in conflict stricken countries [t]http://puu.sh/nDSB8/0bbac5af50.jpg[/t] Here's a map of all peacekeeping operations going on right now
[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;49918227]Um, except all the time by sending Peacekeepers to safeguard communities, give refuge and distribute medical aid etc in conflict stricken countries [t]http://puu.sh/nDSB8/0bbac5af50.jpg[/t] Here's a map of all peacekeeping operations going on right now[/QUOTE] This does not really answer the question. Enforce human rights is not the same as pass around aid.
[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;49918227]Um, except all the time by sending Peacekeepers to safeguard communities, give refuge and distribute medical aid etc in conflict stricken countries [t]http://puu.sh/nDSB8/0bbac5af50.jpg[/t] Here's a map of all peacekeeping operations going on right now[/QUOTE] So the "Peacekeepers" are only dealing with the aftermath of the lack of peace, and are not actually keeping the peace at all.
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;49918233]So the "Peacekeepers" are only dealing with the aftermath of the lack of peace, and are not actually keeping the peace at all.[/QUOTE] Well Cypher_09 when you come up with a unit of precognisant and omnipresent supermen that under moral obligations don't require legal and political oversight I'm sure the UN will be very interested in hearing you out. Edit: Also "UN peacekeepers" is a far more catchy name than "UN peace relief, restoration and maintenance force" [QUOTE=rndgenerator;49918231]This does not really answer the question. Enforce human rights is not the same as pass around aid.[/QUOTE] Yeah which is why I said "safeguard communities" which comes under the heading of enforcing human rights
[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;49918255]Well Cypher_09 when you come up with a unit of precognisant and omnipresent supermen that under moral obligations don't require legal and political oversight I'm sure the UN will be very interested in hearing you out. [/QUOTE] It's not my job to come up with the solutions. I'm not the one who calls myself a peacekeeper. I admire the UN for everything good they do around the world, but at the moment they are stretched to almost every corner of the globe and the crisis that occurs there, and are therefore having less of a positive impact in all aspects across the whole table. There's too much shit going on everywhere for there to be a unanimous and unilateral approach to "this crisis", or "that crisis", tensions and conflicts are feared to be made worse by intervention, so too if the decision were made to take a less-active role. The only thing the UN can do is what they are doing, but right now they can barely do shit about anything.
[QUOTE=_Axel;49917903]When was the last time the UN has actually done anything to enforce human rights?[/QUOTE] Eh they're effective as a mediator but their force only comes from agreement on action, nobody wants to get involved in this because everybody who normally would is fighting a massive clusterfuck in syria
All I'm seeing is criticality of aid-organizations in this thread. People who work in aid-organizations A) Don't make a lot of money (such as my father) who has B) devoted his life to an altruistic cause (helping others). Think aid isn't enough? When was the last time you donated to a charity? Was it a couple bucks or a significant amount of your pay cheque? Should we just stop giving aid all together if it can't solve all problems at once? "If you can't feed a hundred people then just feed one" - Mother Theresea Think the U.N. is useless and just sends angry letters? At least SOMEONE is saying this stuff is wrong rather than NO ONE saying ANYTHING.
Stop calling on the UN. The UN is all bark no bite. They arent going to do shit. Sudan/S. Sudan is such a conflict zone that little will change.
[QUOTE=_Axel;49917903]When was the last time the UN has actually done anything to enforce human rights?[/QUOTE] The UN has [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Mission_in_South_Sudan]about 12,000 troops[/url] in South Sudan. It's a country of 11.3 million people with an army of 150,000 though so that's not enough to stop this shit. [QUOTE=Fourier;49918211]Isn't UN peacekeeping & defensive organization? They don't attack, just hold the ground[/QUOTE] Generally yes, but in 2013 for the first time ever they deployed an [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Force_Intervention_Brigade]Intervention Brigade[/url] to DR Congo, which was authorised to attack and neutralise the rebel group M23. By the end of the year, M23 had surrendered. We haven't seen another Intervention Brigade since, and it's not going to become a common thing, but it's now something that the UN has done and could do again.
[QUOTE=Fourier;49918211]Isn't UN peacekeeping & defensive organization? They don't attack, just hold the ground[/QUOTE] The UN was on the offensive during the Korean War, but that's the only time I know of that they fought an offensive war. It's also the only time Soviet Pilots engaged American Pilots in warfare, though they tried to disguise themselves as North Koreans.
Here's how things will probably go down, UN decides to take real action and sends in peacekeepers to take control. More peacekeepers probably die because they'll be actively fighting more. As soon as peacekeepers start dying countries start freaking out and public support for the UN plummets further.
Another interesting thing about UN peacekeeping. Think about this: Which countries do you think contribute the most troops to UN peacekeeping missions around the world? Actually think about it, try and guess who the top countries would be. Here's the actual top 10, as of 2015: [sp]Bangladesh - 9432 Ethiopia - 8309 India - 7800 Pakistan - 7533 Rwanda - 5591 Nepal - 5332 Senegal - 3575 Ghana - 3156 China - 3084 Nigeria - 2940 WTF right? Did you guess that the #1 country would be Bangladesh? Also Western countries are noticeably absent from the start of the list, with Italy being the highest all the way down at #26. Here's the full list:[/sp] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_UN_peacekeepers[/url]
[QUOTE=smurfy;49921151]Another interesting thing about UN peacekeeping. Think about this: Which countries do you think contribute the most troops to UN peacekeeping missions around the world? Actually think about it, try and guess who the top countries would be. Here's the actual top 10, as of 2015: [sp]Bangladesh - 9432 Ethiopia - 8309 India - 7800 Pakistan - 7533 Rwanda - 5591 Nepal - 5332 Senegal - 3575 Ghana - 3156 China - 3084 Nigeria - 2940 WTF right? Did you guess that the #1 country would be Bangladesh? Also Western countries are noticeably absent from the start of the list, with Italy being the highest all the way down at #26. Here's the full list:[/sp] [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_UN_peacekeepers[/URL][/QUOTE] Honestly it's not that surprising, it's not a case of the west forcing / using poor countries to peace keep, it's more complicated than that. Generally the UN does not require soldiers from the West because those nations at the top willingly provide the manpower. Those nations not only get compensation for their military contribution (litterally turn a profit on an otherwise unused asset) but they also get to gain favor on the world stage because of their assistance. The logistics and funding of the UN? the western nations generally dominate that. There's also the fact that the UN's army is not a standing one, it borrows troops from countries as and when it needs them, those troops tend to be the closest on hand with race, languages and religion also playing a huge role in their selection. To put it another way, they send in a peacekeeping force that can connect with the people it's trying to help and above all [B]is viewed and perceived as Neutral[/B]. A US/UK led UN peacekeeping force in the middle east (many places actually) for example will not be viewed or treated as neutral because of the last 20 or so years. At the same time, western military's are generally deployed in tandem with the UN (well UN follow on most of the time), we actively fight the 'bad guys' the UN sits behind or to the sides in the neutral zones 'protected' by our presence. Naturally there's a lot more too it than this and I'm bound to have gotten some things blurred, but basically my point is that this is not an instance of the west 'skimping' on it's duties, if there was ever a time where the UN needed western troop's, it'd get them.
[QUOTE=smurfy;49921151]Another interesting thing about UN peacekeeping. Think about this: Which countries do you think contribute the most troops to UN peacekeeping missions around the world? Actually think about it, try and guess who the top countries would be. Here's the actual top 10, as of 2015: [sp]Bangladesh - 9432 Ethiopia - 8309 India - 7800 Pakistan - 7533 Rwanda - 5591 Nepal - 5332 Senegal - 3575 Ghana - 3156 China - 3084 Nigeria - 2940 WTF right? Did you guess that the #1 country would be Bangladesh? Also Western countries are noticeably absent from the start of the list, with Italy being the highest all the way down at #26. Here's the full list:[/sp] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_UN_peacekeepers[/url][/QUOTE] Um the US has an entire fleet of hospital and logistics ships that the Navy volunteers to help the peacekeepers missions, on top of that the air force helps the UN missions through supplies, intelligence, and occasional airstrikes, and the army and Marines probably help out too, it's just easier to volunteer the forces under US command instead of set them up under UN command
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.