After the apparent masacre of 100s (if not thousands) of people (many of them reported to be women and children) in Duekoue in the Ivory Coast; a town protected by a UN peace keeping force, my mind goes back to the awful events at Srebrenica in July 1995, where upto 8000 civilian males (men and boys) were massacred - despite the town being a UN Safe Area and "protected" by a UN peace keeping force.
Sadly it seems that 16 years on the UN still has not learnt the lessons and has not given its Peace keepers the robust rules of engagement that are neccessary for them to keep the peace.
We may as well just call them Massacre Observation patrols and take away their weapons, they seem on the surface incapable of using them to do the job their title suggests.
Monday, 4 April 2011
Double Standards - surely not
It is reasonably clear why the UN passed resolution 1973 in order to prevent the use of indescriminate weaponry (for instance artillery and air power) being used against primarily civillian areas in Libya. You may not agree with the methods being used, or the fact that Nato has taken the lead - personally i would have prefered the Arab League and African Union take the lead - using Nato hardware but under local command, but the aim (to protect civillians) is laudable, and possible sets a model for future interventions.
So who is the next target for a similar type of "civillian protection" resolution ? Which other country routinely shells and uses airborne weaponry to attack mainly civillian areas ? The only one that springs to mind is Israel - with its routine attacks into Gaza - which is by any measure a primarily civillian area.
I appreciate somewhat the bind that Israel is in - afterall they routinely suffer rocket attacks from Gaza, but those rockets rarely do any damage, and i think have resulted in few deaths (if any) and few injuries, where as the IDF retaliation regularly results in many deaths and injuries, and could be easily determined to be disproportionate.
Now - do we expect a "civillian protection" resolution to be enacted by the UN and enforced by Nato against Israel ? No, I thought not - answers on a postcard as to the reasons why not - I am sure we can all think of some.
So who is the next target for a similar type of "civillian protection" resolution ? Which other country routinely shells and uses airborne weaponry to attack mainly civillian areas ? The only one that springs to mind is Israel - with its routine attacks into Gaza - which is by any measure a primarily civillian area.
I appreciate somewhat the bind that Israel is in - afterall they routinely suffer rocket attacks from Gaza, but those rockets rarely do any damage, and i think have resulted in few deaths (if any) and few injuries, where as the IDF retaliation regularly results in many deaths and injuries, and could be easily determined to be disproportionate.
Now - do we expect a "civillian protection" resolution to be enacted by the UN and enforced by Nato against Israel ? No, I thought not - answers on a postcard as to the reasons why not - I am sure we can all think of some.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)