Europe Will Provide Half of Peacekeeping Force

The Washington Post ^ | August 25, 2006 | Molly Moore

[goarmy]

BRUSSELS, Aug. 25 -- European countries agreed Friday to provide about half the troops for a new 15,000-member U.N. peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon, with the first sizeable contingents to arrive within a week, officials announced after an emergency meeting here.

"Europe is providing the backbone of the force," U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said after a two-hour session with European foreign ministers. "We can now begin to put together a credible force."

-snip-

[goarmy]

Backbone???

[Red6]

He heard that word used somewhere else and thought it sounded good. Especially if he said it wearing his pretty suit.

[glorgau]

Europe? It's probably going to end up being Lithuania, Portugal, and Slovenia that provide the troops.

[chrismich2610]

What would a war without the french be like? WWII

[jonascord]

With the other half coming from countries that don't even recognize Israel as a state? Holy blue-eyed beardless....

This will go over like a fart in a space suit!

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

Not totally true -- the French did fight in North Africa for about 3 days -- against the U.S. and British forces.

[Right Wing Assault]

Europe will actually risk its lives to protect their good buddies, Hezb'allah.

[goarmy]

"We can now begin to put together a credible force."

Credibility takes precedent over all else. This is why the UN's effectiveness is limited to distributing food made in the USA, and they're not even good at that task since they refuse to accompany the shipments at the slightest sign of danger.

[CJ Wolf]

It's Ancient Rome all over again.

[aShepard]

Hey Kofi, don't look at us for the other half!

We're kinda busy right now cleaning up the rest of your Cash for food scum!

[datura]

"Credible force" and "UN" don't belong in the same language. Add "European", and it gets funny.

[RC51]

Why don't they ask the Soviets to do it. Russia is trying so hard to climb back up to the top o' the mountain and most of Hizbo's arms are already Russian or Chinese...

Russia cannot lead or be superpower, the only thing they are halfway good at is being a spoiler. Kinda the doppelganger to the USA.

[Jaded]

Yep, rather like the fox guarding the hen house or Cujo playing fetch with small children.

[Kakaze]

This "force" should arrive just about the time this war heats up again.

No One with any common sense wants to be in the middle of this mess, when the bullets start to fly again.

[delacoert]

<nod>

Europe and backbone don't both belong in the same sentence.

[Red6]

Corruption among other things does not help either.

But the real reason the UN is dead is because it has been taken over by baboons. Every banana republic out there has their representatives there and has a say. The UN has become a place where politicians wheel and deal.

Example: When Iraq was on the table for a second resolution in 2002 the US and Britain were pushing hard for it. The Germans and French against it. The true driving forces were: the US/Mexican boarder (Driving force for FOX), Cameroon negotiated trade with Europe (Cameroons motives). The issue Iraq and its violation of security counsel mandates on 35 counts was a side bar topic. Mexico used the issue Iraq as a crow bar to leverage deals reference the boarder, just as Cameroon did with France/Germany for trade in this chess game.

The problem with games like this is that the Security Counsel itself has become impotent and laden with ulterior motives. The UN is a golf club where political leaders slice up the pie a little finer amongst themselves; ethics, morals, human rights, are concepts literally foreign to many of those who have a say within this organization. You have Iraq under Saddam on the WMD nonproliferation committee and Sudan or Chad (I forget which one but it really does not matter does it?) on the committee for human rights! They have brought their corrupt way of thinking with them to the table, only they wear a pretty suit and keep their mistresses in expensive NY or Swiss hotels.

[stefan10]

Your posts are always funny.

during the iraq crisis only the UK USA and Spain supported the second US/UK resolution in the security council and the french resolution had a majority but the US made clear that they would use their veto. So it was clever and the best solution from the UK/US not to go for a second resolution at all. They had not the smallest chance to get the backing for this war in the security council.

You can say that was a shame and a huge mistake but clearly not a question of deals.

At least it was a very costly thing if you compare the first and the second gulf war and the ways these wars were financed.

[Red6]

Member states come to the table already knowing how they will vote. The real decision making process takes place long before a vote.

Fischer traveled to Cameroon and several other places with the 'expressed' intent to undo any possible support for a second resolution. Make no illusions of it, France by itself would not have been so bold, but when Schroeder began talking about a 'Abentuer' and played the anti war card in the 2002 election Germany took on a position they could no longer back out of, especially once the Red/Green coalition formed. The Schroeder administration found itself in a position where they had to work against a second resolution, which they did.

Instead of reinterpreting history I suggest you look at where your Aussenminister traveled shortly before the UN counsel meetings took place. I suggest you ask yourself 'why' the Schroeder administration was so strongly for Turkey entering the EU (Hint- Not because the majority of Germans like the idea) Do you think that may have something to do with Turkey turning away billions in US grants and loans and not allowing us to use their land to open a north front? You bet.

Germany came to the UN table with internal political objectives that needed to be met. Mexico at the time was on the security counsel and Fox didn't even make it a secret. He made 'PUBLIC' statements to this affect - He openly stated that Mexico would largely base how they vote on the US reconsidering the US/Mexican boarder issue.

Issues at hand in the security counsel are driven exclusively by ulterior motives. Russia and China have vested economic interests in Iran, is the issue of Iran violating UN mandates really the driving force for how Russia and China will vote? The UN is dead. It is no more than a palce for baboons to talk-

[stefan10]

The UN security council has 15 members.

From these 15 members only three supported the US/UK resolution.

So there were 12 members opposing it. germany was not significant. Germany has no veto power.


Turkey was not a member of the security council. The turkish people strongly opposes this war and the government had simply not much choice here. This war simply is and was very unpopular in the rest of the world.
The EU membership is a very complicated topic. I do not support a EU membership of turkey mainly because of economic reasons.
But the EU signed contracts with turkey starting in the late 60s and now we have the problems that turkey starts to solve the problems we never thought they really can. So the EU has a huge problem here. We have to negotiate with turkey "pacta sunt servanda" but a majority of people and countries do not want a membership. That´s the way it is.

Every country is driven by internal politics ( what else ?)
The german government opposes this war and the german people opposes this war. As said somebody can think that was a mistake but brecht said once "Die Regierung möge sich ein anderes Volk wählen". The german people made a clear decission and that´s democracy.

Do you know which country has used the most vetos in the history of the UN?

The UN is dead? perhaps who knows what the future brings.
We have the problem that we now live in a more complex world than twenty years ago. The cold war was a time of stability in most parts of the world. Now we see a lot of changes and problems. That´s why i support a united and strong europe. The EU could be another force of stability in the world with a common army and security policy.

The US has the burden of being the only superpower and that could also bring huge negative effects. The US does not need the UN or other countries for a war like Iraq but it needs other countries for the legitimation and the PR front and for the time after the war including the huge costs.
So a lot of people here believe that the UN was dead before the war and perhaps some weeks after the war but clearly not today. The US foreign policy has changed after the iraq war. You can see that at the iran topic and all the other problems. No US government wants another iraq in the upcoming years and so negotiations and international policy are more alive than three years ago. If the uN is needed for that i do not know.