Uncle Lew criticizes UN

[Pikache]

Another MGen Mackenzie article. They are so amusing and interesting.

http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?id=1260F606-AE84-4F94-AF08-4A6288341E35

Congo tragedy shows up the UN

Lewis MacKenzie
National Post


Monday, May 26, 2003
ADVERTISEMENT


If it weren‘t so tragic it would be tedious reflecting on the United Nations‘ abject failure to address significant issues of international peace and security in the absence of major support -- both moral and material -- from the United States. Study after study undertaken at the behest of the UN‘s Secretary-General, the most recent being the year 2000 Brahimi Report, have offered up academic solutions to a disastrous situation that cries out for practical solutions.

Lakhdar Brahimi (currently the UN Secretary-General‘s envoy to the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan), following a review of the UN‘s peacekeeping failures in Srebrenica, Somalia and Rwanda, recommended the UN should avoid sending peacekeepers to a conflict absent a precise and unambiguous mandate, adequate funding and sufficient military force to handle a worst-case scenario.

Fast forward to the current situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo. A total of six foreign armies and up to 11 factions (at last estimate) are locked in a violent struggle for control of various parts of a resource-rich country the size of Ontario and Quebec combined. Into this morass the UN has inserted a few hundred officer observers -- unarmed --and a few thousand lightly armed soldiers. Their mandate is to help facilitate the implementation of various flawed peace initiatives that are not honoured by the majority of the participants to the conflict. À la Somalia in 1992, the UN troops are virtually blockaded in their barracks and are at the mercy of the drugged, undisciplined and ill-led belligerents who surround them and couldn‘t give a **** for the UN and the utterances from its headquarters in New York. If you are invited to a knife fight you should always take a gun. But yet again, the UN has taken nothing more than a rucksack of optimism and left a UN commander out to dry.

Like it or not, the UN is no longer capable of finding adequate resources, read countries, willing to sacrifice their sons and daughters in uniform for someone else‘s human rights, unless the conflict threatens world peace and security or is in America‘s self-interest to get involved.

Apply that criteria to the situation in the Congo and you get little interest and no action writ large. Africa, in general, and the complicated situation in the Congo don‘t register on the "must-do" list of the Security Council. Observers wax eloquent on how the Security Council would have acted to stop the potential genocide in Rwanda in 1993 if only they had known of Canadian General Roméo Dallaire‘s forecast of genocide and his plea for additional soldiers to try and thwart it. Balls! The Permanent Five veto-holding members of the Security Council knew a **** of a lot more about what was going on in Rwanda and what was being planned by the Hutus than General Dallaire, who had virtually zero intelligence-gathering capability in his tiny command. They chose to do nothing because they had no national self-interests in Rwanda.

Estimates put the death toll from the current conflict in the Congo at more than three million since 1998. That figure, along with two million plus slaughtered in Southern Sudan during the same period, should qualify Africa for the front pages of the world. Rape, machete blows indiscriminately removing thousands of children‘s limbs, child-soldiers forced into service as young as 12 have hardly caused a hint of Western interest. On the other hand, recent claims of cannibalism with the hearts and livers of enemy soldiers being eaten while still warm has caught the attention of the sensationalist-seeking Western press.

The Congo is a perfect example of a crisis the UN should be able to resolve without the leadership of the United States -- by deploying the force necessary to sort out the thugs and goons who currently control the streets and jungles. The fact that the UN is not capable of doing so should be the final piece of evidence to convince even the most optimistic among us that it is incapable of carrying out the role assigned it in 1945 as the primary instrument responsible for international peace and security.

Those numerous Canadian commentators who call for our immediate participation in the Congo as "peacekeepers" display a disturbing ignorance of the profound change that has taken place regarding conflict since the end of the Cold War. Peacekeeping was a key component of our foreign policy for almost 50 years. It was a good run, but the concept is pretty well dead and buried and it‘s time for its inventor -- us -- to admit it. Mercifully, countries rarely go to war these days, but factions within countries are fighting in more than 50 conflicts as you read this. If the UN is to take on stopping the slaughter it needs the participation of professional militaries trained for combat in sufficient numbers to defeat -- euphemism for kill in most cases -- the perpetrators of these war crimes. The concept of a neutral and impartial role for the UN in such conflicts is dangerous wishful thinking, and wrong. Like it or not, this fact, based on compelling evidence accumulated over the past decade, should be serious food for thought as the federal government undertakes the long-overdue foreign and defence policy review as promised by prime ministerial contenders Paul Martin and John Manley.

Maj-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie, now retired, commanded UN troops during the Bosnian civil war of 1992.

© Copyright 2003 National Post

 

[RoyalHighlander]

Dam he should run for Chretiens job..

 

[Thaedes]

Dam he should run for Chretiens job..

I totally disagree, his comments were at best mildly informative. But all in all, it was sh*t.

He portrays a picture of a failing and aging UN, by highlighting a few recent events. Neglecting to mention the few recent success. Neglecting to mention continued efforts to rectify failures or percieved failures.

His rant has the pervassive feeling as to a suggestion of dissolving the UN, or putting it aside and writing it off as something not to be overly concerned with.

It was a good run, but the concept is pretty well dead and buried and it‘s time for its inventor -- us -- to admit it.

His comment pertaining to peacekeeping is a good indication of his own level of ignorance and conceit. Canada did not invent peacekeeping, or found it, or even propose it first.

It was, if it could possibly be attributed to anyone or anyplace, the likely brainchild of President Wilson in the wake of the first world war, in his push for the League of Nations (ironically enough the US, due to its foriegn policies at the time, never took part in this).

The concept of a neutral and impartial role for the UN in such conflicts is dangerous wishful thinking, and wrong

Highlight the word wrong everyone, this man means to dictate to us what is right and what is wrong, and expects us to swallow that bunk?

He seems to be confusing his own
opinions on what the UN‘s mandate with what it actually is.

need to go now, but ill rant more later myself.

 

[klumanth]

quote
--------------------------------------------------
His comment pertaining to peacekeeping is a good indication of his own level of ignorance and conceit. Canada did not invent peacekeeping, or found it, or even propose it first.

It was, if it could possibly be attributed to anyone or anyplace, the likely brainchild of President Wilson in the wake of the first world war, in his push for the League of Nations (ironically enough the US, due to its foriegn policies at the time, never took part in this).
--------------------------------------------------

What are you talking about? Why do you think Lester B. Pearson was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize? While the idea of sending observers was not new, He was the first to offer soldiers as actual peacekeepers, as we know them today, to the Suez Canal area. While I do not agree with everything Mackenzie says, I think he is quite justifed in claiming we invented peacekeeping as it is known today.

 

[Infanteer]

Put up your credentials and we‘ll see if you have what it takes to judge General Mackenzie as ignorant, conceitful, confused and full of sh!t.

 

[Thaedes]

Credentials have little to do with opinions. And thats just it, he is expressing an opinion right or wrong. Props to him for going for it.

Still doesn‘t make it any more right then mine. You believe because hes earned his rank he has more credibility that I do, well good for you. I never said you had to swallow my bunk. I never claimed that he was wrong. I just said his all too casual manner in which he speaks of the UN and its committments portrays himself as a jacka$s to all of us who aren‘t taken in by his former rank.

I‘m not trying to be confrontational with anyone here, so don‘t assume im attacking your views or whatever. Feel free to express your own opinions.

In any case, to add to my previous thoughts;

Anyone can point out flaws in a project, or in this case the UN. That is easy. It‘s when people include in their rants about the problems with a government (or in this case the UN) a solution that their arguements really gain any form of credability. Where in all of that does MacKenzie offer an alternative?

He merely states that the UN must do this or that. That isn‘t a solution, thats a point of view. How is the UN to increase their militant presence and how are they to enforce? Where is the UN to find these funds? Lets not forget now that the US supplies the UN with roughly 45% of their money (since Clinton‘s term this has dropped quite a bit).

Mackenzie suggests that the UN stops relying on US leadership. How? the US is a veto member, you can‘t remove the US presence anymore then you could China if China decided to play a larger role in world politics. Especially since they are paying the most into the UN.

Moreover, even the US has its limitations, while the War in Iraq was most certainly a US interest it was costly for the US. How many more operations of that type can they single handedly fund, or even jointly fund with the British as in Iraq?

It‘s not the UN‘s job to MAKE anything right, it is their job to Help people. In the end, we must recognize that their are limitations, and to take a more aggressive role is to compromise much of the UN‘s credability.

And lastly, we must consider the role of the UN. It is after all Peacekeeping yes? What Mackenzie is suggesting is Peacemaking, and that would be taking it upon our shoulders (the members of the UN) to impose our views on other cultures.

With regards to the situation in the Congo, there are millions of innocents being killed. Truly a nearly unnoticed tragedy in Western media. The UN wants to help those people who want to be free and want to live relatively safe lives. But ultimately, it is the people of that area who must decide to put the weapons down and strive for that freedom. If you go in their guns blazing and killing off the soldiers and militants of the various factions your not going to have peace. Your going to create more problems like those you see in the Middle East now.

We‘ve already gone down the Peacemaking road, and found out that it had severe reprecussions 10 - 20 even 40 years down the road.

Let me clarify. I‘m not saying the UN is perfect, or that it doesn‘t have its problems. Or even that Mackenzie‘s opinions are all wrong. I‘m just saying that the way in which hes expressed himself is quite poor indeed. And that the issues deserve an attempt at some constructive criticism at the very least.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Thaedes, you say the Mackenzie fails to mention recent UN successes.

Could you outline a couple for us? I would find that most interesting.

TIA

 

[RKC73]

Ref: Lew Mackenzie‘s Article

I was interested to read Lew Mackenzie‘s recent article in which he voices his opinions on the UN‘s latest exploits to Africa. It‘s clear that some find Mackenzie‘s comments too blunt, off-handish and without solutions. Unfortunately, the UN‘s track record, certainly where Africa is concerned, could do with some frank discussion. The reality is that the continent of Afica has literally become a fire-ship set adrift largely by western apathy. The problems there, and the inefficiencies that have characterised UN missions there, have most glaringly been exposed in recent years in Somalia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone. Looking back, the UN has a long history in Africa and includes, ironicaly enough, the Congo. That said, these issues are well beyond the scope of my intended reply.
My reflection on Mackenzie‘s article is that I agree with him on what I believe is his salient point: If the UN is going to act - it must do so decisively, with the authority it should demand as the world‘s governing body. To do otherwise is folly.
I am no longer with the Canadian Army and am currently serving with the Australian Army in East Timor. This is my fourth mission overseas and third with the UN. I have served in Cyprus, and in Bosnia spending time in such places as Srebrenica. This may be irrelavant to some, but it isn‘t to me. The experiences I had in Bosnia on my first tour there - the changing mandate, the uncertainty, the lack of support I felt from a higher level - made me severely question the involvement Canada had with the UN. Many of the situations(countires/missions) that commanders and soldiers are placed in by the UN are highly suspect. Don‘t get me wrong, soldiering is dangerous work - but when you are set up for failure from your ORBAT to your ROE - it is even more so. In its defence, the UN is a civilian organization and Canada and other nations must ultimately hold themselves accountable for the situations they place their soldiers in. That is where Mackenzie comes in. He clearly feels passionately about the subject, as do I. If you are going to commit to something - that involves the risk of losing lives - a cavalier approach is not in order. The UN has it‘s heart in the right place - but it too often "situates the estimate" and as a result it throws the wrong assests at the problem. In effect, trying to sort out what is in reality a military problem with a humanitarian solution or vice-versa is a recipe for failure. The UN‘s latest forray into Africa does little to shed it‘s reputation as a big bungling beauracracy that can‘t seem to react quick enough to get inside the "OODA loop" of the world‘s trouble spots. As far as Mackenzie goes, he has flaws as we all do. There is nothing wrong with being passionate and speaking your mind in a frank manner - it‘s too bad we don‘t see more of it from people who are supposed to be leaders.

Duty First!

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Still waiting on that one, Thaedes...

 

[Pikache]

http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/story.html?id=931A40C6-B168-4F28-A0CB-70FE9EAE45DC

Not qualified for the job in Congo

Lewis MacKenzie
National Post


Thursday, June 12, 2003

CRISIS IN CONGO: Lewis MacKenzie: Why he should not go: ‘Gen. Baril‘s recent appointment ... is a vivid reminder that the UN‘s old boys‘ club is alive and well.‘:

ADVERTISEMENT


It‘s not easy or satisfying writing critically about an old friend. Unfortunately, the announcement that the United Nations Secretary General has appointed recently retired Chief of Defence Staff General Maurice Baril as an envoy to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) causes me to undertake this somewhat distasteful task.

In 1993, while filming a documentary on the UN, I had the good fortune to conduct a long interview in a Washington, D.C., hotel room with Richard Thornberg, ex-attorney general of the United States and ex-governor of the Pennsylvania. A year earlier Mr. Thornberg had been tasked by then-Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali to conduct an "efficiency review" of the UN with a view to enhancing the effectiveness of the UN‘s relatively small, yet bureaucratically paralyzed, staff. Mr. Thornberg submitted his comprehensive report on time and below budget. His primary conclusion was that there was an "old boys‘ club" that dominated the UN and that it posed an insurmountable obstacle to anything approaching real efficiency.

International civil servants and diplomats from developing countries, appointed by their parent countries on a rotational basis, frequently lacked the qualifications demanded by the UN‘s job description. More often than not they were successful in obtaining lucrative New York appointments as a direct result of their personal ties with their nation‘s leader. On arrival at the UN, their self-interest motivated them to perpetuate the system that rewarded those within their inner circle. Within two weeks of Mr. Thornberg‘s enlightened report landing on the Secretary General‘s desk it was shredded -- having been declared much too controversial! I have one of the few surviving copies.

General Baril‘s recent appointment by Secretary General Kofi Annan to try and organize a national army in the Congo is a vivid reminder that the UN‘s "old boys‘ club" is alive and well -- and doesn‘t just recruit from developing countries.

Tragically, General Baril and Kofi Annan were at the very centre of the UN‘s two most disastrous failures in its history -- the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, and the embarrassing and futile attempt to resolve the refugee crisis in Eastern Zaire (now the DRC) in 1997.

Much has been written about General Roméo Dallaire‘s inability to mobilize enough interest within the Security Council so that members would have provided the modest forces necessary to thwart the Rwandan genocide he was predicting. General Dallaire had no previous experience within the UN‘s dysfunctional command structure, a severe handicap that would have disqualified him from his command role if the disaster in Rwanda had been foreseen. That being the case, it automatically fell to Annan, then the UN‘s Undersecretary for Peacekeeping, and Baril, military advisor to Boutros Boutros-Ghali, to coerce the Security Council into providing the additional troops on his behalf. There was nothing unique about this challenge and a number of options were available. Dallaire‘s pleadings from the epicentre of the slaughter received little attention at the UN. Boutros-Ghali‘s presentation to the UN, presumably prepared by Annan and Baril, offered the Council three options -- one of which was to reduce Dallaire‘s force by 50%! To his credit this was not the option recommended by Boutros-Ghali; however, it provided the Security Council with an easy way out, which it selected with unnerving haste. Annan and Baril were mute on the subject when timely leaks to the media, concurrent with the lobbying of member nations‘ permanent representatives, could have highlighted Dallaire‘s dilemma. Up to 800,000 innocents were slaughtered while the UN turned a blind eye.

Four years later, on a Sunday afternoon while watching TV at his Harrington Lake cottage, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien discovered there was a refugee crisis in Eastern Zaire -- the direct result of the earlier genocide in neighbouring Rwanda. The Prime Minister convinced the UN that Canada should organize a rescue mission to alleviate the refugee suffering. General Baril, then the commander of the Army would lead the operation.

Failing to notice that the desperate situation was unfolding at the collision point of the old French and British colonial empires in Africa, the lead elements of General Baril‘s hastily organized mission never even reached the crisis area and ended up cooling their heels hundreds of miles away at the airport in Entebbe, Uganda. Landing rights in the area were denied. General Baril was permitted to visit close to the crisis area for a photo op, but during a short walking tour was unable to find any refugees and declared the emergency over. Non-governmental agencies, including Doctors without Borders, hollered from the rooftops that he had gone in the wrong direction and that the crisis was indeed continuing if he cared to find it. The General went home and the NGOs stayed and dealt with the suffering.

When commenting on his recent appointment, General Baril said, "having lived what I have lived in that region you just can‘t say no."

An advisory job to the Secretary General at UN headquarters in New York during the Rwanda crisis, and a short visit to Zaire during a botched UN mission, do not uniquely qualify someone for a challenging and critical job in the current DRC crisis.

One is more inclined to conclude that the "old boys‘ club" of the Rwandan genocide and the "bungle in the jungle" a few years later in Zaire refuses to acknowledge its disastrous role in those two monumental failures. On the contrary, the failures are offered up as qualifications for taking on key roles in the current crisis in the same area. Seems to me there are plenty of experts on that area of Africa who would be eminently qualified to take on General Baril‘s challenging task.

Is it just me or is the UN proving completely incapable of arresting its downhill slide into irrelevance on issues of international peace and security?

Maj-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie, now retired, commanded UN; troops during the Bosnian civil war of 1992.

© Copyright 2003 National Post
***
Ouch

 

[Jason Jarvis]

Ouch indeed! I‘m hard-pressed to recall another incident in which a former general has so harshly criticized a former comrade in such a public manner -- Canadian or otherwise.

I‘ve always respected MacKenzie‘s tendency to speak his mind, especially when he knew it wouldn‘t win him any favours, but to offer such a bitter condemnation of Baril strikes me as more than a little petty.

I agree with those who complain that instead of just b!tching about the problems with the UN, MacKenzie should be offering proposals to set it on the appropriate road -- whatever that may be -- and this is an excellent example where his first-hand knowledge might prove useful.

That said, he certainly did an excellent job of shredding Baril‘s "qualifications." It‘s not so much that the UN is "proving completely incapable of arresting its downhill slide into irrelevance on issues of international peace and security?" as it is of getting good value for its money!

 

[Spr.Earl]

For those of you who critisize Lew, he is still in the know to more info than we.
I for one agree for most of what he wrote and still admire the man for what he has done and still trying to do.
No other General Officer is doing anything,at least he is making Canadian‘s aware of our short coming‘s, past and present.