France Throws U.N Peacekeeping Plans Into Disarray

[ECH1969]

France has rebuffed U.N. pleas to make a major contribution to a peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon, setting back international efforts to send a credible military force to the region to police a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah, according to U.N. and French officials.

French President Jacques Chirac instead committed Thursday to send a relatively small military engineering company of 200 soldiers to serve in a reinforced U.N. peacekeeping mission that is expected to grow to 15,000 strong and that will help Lebanon police a demilitarized zone in southern Lebanon.

The French decision, which was first reported today in the Paris daily Le Monde, has thrown U.N. military planning into disarray on the eve of a major international meeting this afternoon of potential contributors to a U.N. force.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081700813.html

[Zhade]

1. Wha?

NT!

[Jacobin]

2. France is not stupid

Putting European troops in the middle of crossfire between Hezbollah and Israel is a recipe for disaster and will only lead to bloodshed. I don't blame France at all. I think the conflict has gone too far for it to end well. Israel thought it could do a Shock and Awe on Lebanon and make Hezbollah unpopular, and it lost the bet. Hezbollah is feeling empowered and has an increased approval among Lebanese. This is going to get much worse over the years than it is better.

Thank you Madam Supertanker and HeadBlivet for creating yet another multi-year human debacle.

[MikeNearMcChord]

7. On the same day 241 US Marines died in a car bombing

another one slammed into the French Barracks, They are not going to be just the sacrificial lambs.

[tocqueville]

3. no clear rules of engagement = no force

In a telephone conversation late Wednesday with Annan, Prodi called for "a clear mandate, without any ambiguity and with very precise rules of engagement, for the soldiers who will be deployed," the premier's office said.

Chirac, speaking with Annan, echoed repeated demands from French officials that the United Nations clarify "the mission, the rules of engagement and the resources" of the boosted U.N. force.

He also said the choice of contributors should reflect "the commitment of all the international community." Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Turkey, all largely Muslim countries, are among other nations that said they could commit troops to the expanded UNIFIL.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060817/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_mideast_force

[Stockholm]

11. The French are doing the right thing

Clear mandate, clear rules of engagement otherwise token force. Same as the Swedish Government.

[Kagemusha]

4. This is what they call "le discretion".

As in the better part of valor.

[Laughing Mirror]

5. The latest is that Chirac is sending over 200 emergency troops ...

in advance, before UN defines mission. And Chirac reaffirms that France is ready to take over command.

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3218,36-804321@51-759824,0.html

Recall that the Defense Minister came on the evening news last night and said the question was not how many troops France would send, but what would they be doing, and how?

[Jacobin]

8. I read they were 'engineers'

maybe to help repair some of the destruction?

[MrPrax]

6. Can you blame the French?

Who would put their troops under a UN run by Annan:

"...On January 11, 1994, as then-director of the United Nations Department of Peace Keeping Operations, Annan received a fax from Romeo Dallaire, the commander of UN troops in Rwanda. The fax warned Annan of the planned massacres and asked for the right to intervene. Annan rejected the request, refusing to grant the few thousand UN troops in the field the mandate to mount opposition to the mobs. In the next three months nearly 800,000 people were slaughtered.

....

On December 16, 1999, Annan did issue a statement acknowledging the “failure” and expressing his “deep remorse.” But his post-Rwanda record gives little indication that he learned his lesson. In the same 1999 statement, he also apologized for “the equally shameful events which occurred at Srebrenica only a year after those in Rwanda.” Nearly 8,000 Muslim men and boys were killed and thousands of women and children were raped and tortured in Serbian violence that lasted less than a week in Srebrenica, all in the proximity of a UN declared “safe area.” Strike two.

Annan’s failure to act in two very clear instances of genocide is part and parcel of a broader failing. He has neglected to take a firm stance on slavery in the Sudan, the oppression of non-Arab and non-Sunni minorities in the Middle East, or the horribly bloody suppression in Chechnya. Meanwhile, Annan coddles dictators and supports their representatives in offices like the Human Rights Commission, recently chaired by Libya—one of the world’s greatest human rights abusers. He pledged in his 1999 statement to enable “the United Nations never again to fail in protecting a civilian population from genocide or mass slaughter.” These words directly contradict his actual record. Why haven’t more people demanded Annan’s resignation, or called him to trial in the International Court of Justice? For starters, there is the halo that surrounds the United Nations. The UN was formed after World War II in part to prevent the occurrence of another Holocaust. The fact that it has not stopped a single genocide in its half-century of existence is omitted from everyday discourse, such is the cognitive dissonance this ugly truth inspires.

Columbia PR

The French know history and don't want to be in a position of sending a 'genocide' fax to UN while their citizens are being slaughtered by either Hezbullah or Israel.

[MasonJar]

9. Bush needs to go over and stand in front of US forces; If he had

to lead the troops as commander-in-chief, this war would end.

[xchrom]

10. what would france be in charge of? chaos?

france is right to go slow at this moment -- until the u.n. gets some of the details hammered out.