Amid continuing allegations of rape and sexual abuse by its own peacekeepers, the United Nations is about to issue a report focusing on the problem, and making suggestions to end the abuse.

 

According to the Associated Press, the report by Jordan's U.N. Ambassador Prince Zeid al Hussein will propose that "foreign soldiers accused of wrongdoing be court-martialed inside the country where the claims were made," according to a U.N. official who spoke anonymously.

 

As it currently stands, many peacekeepers accused of wrongdoing are never punished, since they're simply sent home to be handled by their own governments.

 

"We are taking very firm measures ? changing some of the commanders, some of the civilian staff have been disciplined ? and we've come up with very strict instructions that they should not fraternize the way they have done in the past," U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said yesterday.

 

As WorldNetDaily previously reported, the widespread sex scandal came to be known as "the U.N.'s Abu Ghraib," with the London Times providing some specific examples, including:

 

* A French U.N. logistics expert in the Congo shot pornographic videos in his home, in which he had converted his bedroom into a photo studio for videotaping his sexual abuse of young girls. When police raided his home, the man was allegedly about to rape a 12-year-old girl sent to him in a law enforcement sting operation. As the Times reported, a senior Congolese police officer confirmed the bed was surrounded by large mirrors on three sides, with a remote control camera on the fourth side.

 

* U.N. officials are worried that the scandal, which already has netted 150 allegations of sex crimes by U.N. staffers, will explode if the pornographic videos and photos, now on sale in Congo, becoming public

 

"It would be a pretty big problem for the U.N. if these pictures come out," one senior official told the Times.

 

* Two Russian pilots paid young girls with jars of mayonnaise and jam to have sex with them, the report adds.

 

* U.N. "peacekeepers" from Morocco based in Kisangani ? a secluded town on the Congo River ? are notorious for impregnating local women and girls. In March, an international group probing the scandal found 82 women and girls had been made pregnant by Moroccan U.N. staffers and 59 others by Uruguayan staffers. One U.N. soldier accused of rape was apparently hidden in the barracks for a year.

 

Congo's Minister of Defense Maj.-Gen. Jean Pierre Ondekane told a top U.N. official that all U.N. "peacekeepers" in Kisangani would be remember for would be "for running after little girls," the Times reported.

 

* And at least two U.N. officials ? a Ukrainian and a Canadian ? have been forced to leave the African nation after getting local women pregnant.

 

Most of the sexual abuse and exploitation involves trading sex for money, food or jobs. However, some victims say they were raped, but later given food or money to make the incident appear to have been consensual ? "rape disguised as prostitution."

 

U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Jean-Marie Guehenno told the London paper: "The fact that these things happened is a blot on us. It's awful. What is important is to get to the bottom of it and fight it and make sure that people who do that pay for what they have done."

 

Despite the fact that the U.N.'s sexual code of conduct is prominently displayed on U.N. facilities Congo ? forbidding sex with prostitutes or women under 18 ? the U.N. continues to hand out free condoms to "peacekeepers" to protect them from AIDS.

 

Responding to the latest allegations of rape, an activist group renewed its call last week to evict the world body from the U.S.

 

Move America Forward, co-chaired by California campaigner Howard Kaloogian, has collected nearly 100,000 signatures on its petition to "Get the U.N. Out of the U.S." and stop American funding of the organization.

 

"It has become an almost daily occurrence to read about allegations of rape and molestation by U.N. officials," said Kaloogian. "The reputation of the U.N. is so badly tarnished that it cannot be trusted to investigate itself."

 

Fox News had a story about the guy...he is said to have raped mroe than 100 very young girls. They interviewed a 7 year old Congoan girl who had been raped after the man offered her candy. Because of what he did...the girl may have internal organ damage.

 

7 freaking years old!??!!

 

This is disgusting and vile and that guy should be put to death.

This is repulsive. Its not getting much pub because most western media outlets suck the UN off.

That's pretty wrong.

 

They say the tapes haven't been made public, but that they are available for sale in Congo. That doesn't count?

Its actually gotten a lot of attention. Just because the major media outlets dont constantly report it, doesnt mean it isnt a big deal. Just because you guys havent seen it, doesnt mean it hasnt been reported on. I did see something on it on CNN. There was also a report on the guy who took part in genocide and then was relocated. Its not some pro UN stance they have. Jesus, everytime bad pub is not in your face, doesnt mean its the news media sucking that group off.

 

 

The news media has pretty much given Tom Delay a free pass on how deep his indiscretions have gone. I guess that means they are staunchly pro Republican now too?

 

 

 

Now that thats clear, the UN really has to address this stuff. It has no control over its soliders. Its a bit more difficult since they are an international body and will be limited in what they can do to citizens of other countries. Clearly they are acknowledging the problem and are trying to fix it rather than denying it. Thats huge. Lets not forget our soldiers did some questionable things in Vietnam. A lot of people wanted to deny it. A lot of those people are all over the UN.

When Ted Turner gave the UN $1,000,000,000.00 I would consider that sucking them off.

When Ted Turner gave the UN $1,000,000,000.00 I would consider that sucking them off.

699402[/snapback]

apples and oranges.

When Ted Turner gave the UN $1,000,000,000.00 I would consider that sucking them off.

699402[/snapback]

apples and oranges.

699405[/snapback]

With a billion dollars you can definately buy lots of apples and oranges. I know its apples and oranges but dont you find it odd that the then head of CNN gave the UN a billion dollars.

 

All I am saying is that this story wont make much play in the US because its not captivating enough.

 

Not trying to be a smart ass, but a question here. Do you think that CNNs executives and FOXs executives know who there audience is? Dont you think that these organizations pander towards there audience?

When Ted Turner gave the UN $1,000,000,000.00 I would consider that sucking them off.

699402[/snapback]

apples and oranges.

699405[/snapback]

With a billion dollars you can definately buy lots of apples and oranges. I know its apples and oranges but dont you find it odd that the then head of CNN gave the UN a billion dollars.

 

All I am saying is that this story wont make much play in the US because its not captivating enough.

 

Not trying to be a smart ass, but a question here. Do you think that CNNs executives and FOXs executives know who there audience is? Dont you think that these organizations pander towards there audience?

699415[/snapback]

 

I do agree that his giving that money is good circumstantial evidence of his leanings and hence a possible bias. But the devil is often in the details on this stuff.

 

Plus I also agree with you that the reason it isnt making much news in the US is because it isnt captivating enough, but not that its because they want to defend the UN. These actions are pretty bad and are pretty indefenseable. But being critical of the UN on this stuff shouldnt be mixed with being in favor of what the UN may or could stand for.

 

And to answer your question, I do believe they tend to pander to an audience. I applaud you for at least admitting Foxnews is also biased like CNN is on this stuff. The degree of that we may disagree on though.

Ick, what a sick mother f***

Yeah this is f***ing sick.

 

I saw a special report on it on Dateline on NBC.

The UN is making a shame of itself and starting to become irrelevant. They need urgent reform to be effective again.

Its actually gotten a lot of attention. Just because the major media outlets dont constantly report it, doesnt mean it isnt a big deal. Just because you guys havent seen it, doesnt mean it hasnt been reported on. I did see something on it on CNN. There was also a report on the guy who took part in genocide and then was relocated. Its not some pro UN stance they have. Jesus, everytime bad pub is not in your face, doesnt mean its the news media sucking that group off.

 

 

The news media has pretty much given Tom Delay a free pass on how deep his indiscretions have gone. I guess that means they are staunchly pro Republican now too?

 

 

 

Now that thats clear, the UN really has to address this stuff. It has no control over its soliders. Its a bit more difficult since they are an international body and will be limited in what they can do to citizens of other countries. Clearly they are acknowledging the problem and are trying to fix it rather than denying it. Thats huge. Lets not forget our soldiers did some questionable things in Vietnam. A lot of people wanted to deny it. A lot of those people are all over the UN.

699401[/snapback]

 

 

It isnt just the soldiers. The problem is that a Belgian working as a UN 'peacekeeper' is still a Belgian. The UN doesnt have its own muscle and thus has no way to control the troops they borrow from member states. The UN needs to be given a standing force much like the one proposed in the 50s as part of a european defense alliance. I doubt the member states will agree on such a provision, so the alternative is to get rid of UN peacekeepers and let NATO and other such groups handle international problems.

Its actually gotten a lot of attention. Just because the major media outlets dont constantly report it, doesnt mean it isnt a big deal. Just because you guys havent seen it, doesnt mean it hasnt been reported on. I did see something on it on CNN. There was also a report on the guy who took part in genocide and then was relocated. Its not some pro UN stance they have. Jesus, everytime bad pub is not in your face, doesnt mean its the news media sucking that group off.

 

 

The news media has pretty much given Tom Delay a free pass on how deep his indiscretions have gone. I guess that means they are staunchly pro Republican now too?

 

 

 

Now that thats clear, the UN really has to address this stuff. It has no control over its soliders. Its a bit more difficult since they are an international body and will be limited in what they can do to citizens of other countries. Clearly they are acknowledging the problem and are trying to fix it rather than denying it. Thats huge. Lets not forget our soldiers did some questionable things in Vietnam. A lot of people wanted to deny it. A lot of those people are all over the UN.

699401[/snapback]

 

 

It isnt just the soldiers. The problem is that a Belgian working as a UN 'peacekeeper' is still a Belgian. The UN doesnt have its own muscle and thus has no way to control the troops they borrow from member states. The UN needs to be given a standing force much like the one proposed in the 50s as part of a european defense alliance. I doubt the member states will agree on such a provision, so the alternative is to get rid of UN peacekeepers and let NATO and other such groups handle international problems.

700453[/snapback]

 

 

Interesting idea. The proposal of having the perputrator tried in the country he commited the crime might be a step in the right direction. But maybe not.

 

I agree that nobody will every give the UN a standing army. But do you think that a key element of NATO not going the way of the UN in terms of reputation, especially here in the US, is that it hasnt had to engage in conflicts outside of the US. If NATO stretches that far, then I think they just end up taking the place of the UN as being the villified international organization.

Its actually gotten a lot of attention. Just because the major media outlets dont constantly report it, doesnt mean it isnt a big deal. Just because you guys havent seen it, doesnt mean it hasnt been reported on. I did see something on it on CNN. There was also a report on the guy who took part in genocide and then was relocated. Its not some pro UN stance they have. Jesus, everytime bad pub is not in your face, doesnt mean its the news media sucking that group off.

 

 

The news media has pretty much given Tom Delay a free pass on how deep his indiscretions have gone. I guess that means they are staunchly pro Republican now too?

 

 

 

Now that thats clear, the UN really has to address this stuff. It has no control over its soliders. Its a bit more difficult since they are an international body and will be limited in what they can do to citizens of other countries. Clearly they are acknowledging the problem and are trying to fix it rather than denying it. Thats huge. Lets not forget our soldiers did some questionable things in Vietnam. A lot of people wanted to deny it. A lot of those people are all over the UN.

699401[/snapback]

 

 

It isnt just the soldiers. The problem is that a Belgian working as a UN 'peacekeeper' is still a Belgian. The UN doesnt have its own muscle and thus has no way to control the troops they borrow from member states. The UN needs to be given a standing force much like the one proposed in the 50s as part of a european defense alliance. I doubt the member states will agree on such a provision, so the alternative is to get rid of UN peacekeepers and let NATO and other such groups handle international problems.

700453[/snapback]

 

 

Interesting idea. The proposal of having the perputrator tried in the country he commited the crime might be a step in the right direction. But maybe not.

 

I agree that nobody will every give the UN a standing army. But do you think that a key element of NATO not going the way of the UN in terms of reputation, especially here in the US, is that it hasnt had to engage in conflicts outside of the US. If NATO stretches that far, then I think they just end up taking the place of the UN as being the villified international organization.

700491[/snapback]

 

The problem with the UN is its bylaws for situations such as peacekeeping. For example, in the early 90s the UN had a peacekeeping force led by General Dallaire stationed in Rwanda. Dallaire discovered that Hutu extremists were preparing an offensive near the border of the country, and that they had weapon stockpiles hidden across the border. an informant told Dallaire where the weapons and rebels were hiding. He petitioned to Kofi Annan (who at the time was his superior, though not yet SG) if he can send troops in to destroy the weapons and stop the extremists in order to maintain the peace. Annan responded saying that they could not take any offensive actions in peacekeeping missions. Seems to make sense, but then the extremists killed the rwandan president, began a wave of slaughter, and also killed 12 Belgian troops that were under Dallaire's command. The Belgians then pulled out of Rwanda. Dallaire wanted to retaliate and stop the genocide, but instead the UN took away his troops and left him at only about 200. not enough to do any serious damage. The UN dropped the ball, had daalire been allowed to destroy those weapons and such, 800,000+ lives would have been spared. UN bylaws did not allow for it. NATO or w/e other body takes the UNs place need to have more active guidelines. With globalization the lines of sovreignty are fading more than ever. Internaitonal forces are the only way to prevent such nonsense

The U.N. was useful during the Cold War, but it has become almost completely irrelevant now. It's in need of urgent reform that has been due for about 15 years.

The U.N. was useful during the Cold War, but it has become almost completely irrelevant now. It's in need of urgent reform that has been due for about 15 years.

702113[/snapback]

 

It was actually much more useless during the cold war. Not a single useful resolution could pass b/c either the US or the USSR would veto it in the security council. The UN was only partially sueful at the very beginning of the cold war because it was sued in districuteing funds to europe for rebuilding. By 1955 it was useless