Should U.N. Troops protect displaced people in Congo with force?,

John P. 199°

Well, we're all still celebrating the victory of common sense in the U.S. elections, but as usual there are literally hundreds of humanitarian emergencies unfolding around the world. Surely nobody could have failed to notice the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo, but like everything else it's still not getting as much coverage as the "Credit Crunch".

U.N. troops on the ground have warned that they do not have enough manpower to protect the people that look to them for security. France has suggested sending an additional 1000 European troops, but as usual we here in Europe are ignoring the situation.

Should more troops be sent to Congo? And if so should they use force to protect innocent civilians? The point may be academic, because with too few U.N. troops on the ground their military training will probably dictate discretion as the better part of valour.

2 replies

C Robb W. 444°

If the US weren't busy protecting the interests of the oil industry it could send troops on humanitarian missions such as this. Absolutely, the UN should be involved in such activities.

Written in November 2008

John P. 199°

I tend to agree. I have to say though that they tried in Somalia and got a lot of grief for their efforts.

There's been a lot of debate over this issue in Ireland. Ireland has lost a lot people in peace keeping missions over the years, in Congo, Lebanon and other places. But when you look at what is happening in the DRC I can't think of any reason not to act.

Written in November 2008

Featured Companies & Orgs 

Pledge to do these related actions

Good Food March 2012 - Call for Action, 11°

GOOD FOOD MARCH 2012 A citizen gathering on the future of food and farming ...

petition Energy and Commerce Committee on Keystone pipeline, 11°

Stop Misleading Energy Pipedreams with your signature! Remind Congress that we don’t want to be ...

Folow this related project

Baltimore, United States