{snip} UN’s costly Congo peacekeepers charged with making a bad situation even worse

FoxNews.com ^ | Published December 03, 2012 | George Russell

[BenLurkin]

A United Nations peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which has so far spent $12.8 billion, has been charged by critics with ineptitude and unwillingness to protect civilians from murder, rape and other atrocities.

Skepticism about the 19,000-strong U.N. force, known since 2010 as MONUSCO, has swelled to the point that some critics are questioning the wisdom of using the U.N. to prop up Congo, which is engaged in a bloody struggle with a rebel group known as the March 23 Movement (M23).

Meantime, the U.N. continues to spend roughly $1.4 billion a year on MONUSCO, with the U.S. responsible for 27 percent, or $380 million, a year. Over the life of the variously named Congo peacekeeping force, the U.S. contribution is nearly $3.5 billion — or roughly 2.5 times what the city of Chicago estimates it will rake in next year in local tax revenues.

“The peacekeeping force in Congo is fundamentally ineffective,” says Brett Schaeffer, an expert on U.N. affairs at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington. “It is not solving anything. It’s not clear they have an understanding of what their role is there.”

Indeed, the Congo peacekeeping force is a classic example of mission creep. It began in 1999, after a three-year rebellion against Kabila’s father, which was also backed by neighboring Rwanda and Uganda. Then named MONUC, for “United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,” its main aim was to supervise a cease-fire. Total cost for the initial year: $55 million.

Within four years, the cost had increased ten-fold, and hit the $1 billion mark in the mission’s fiscal year ending June 2003. ... the number of peacekeeping troops and police rose, to a high of 22,000 in 2007, even as Kabila ostensibly consolidated power.

[Fiji Hill]

“The peacekeeping force in Congo is fundamentally ineffective, says Brett Schaeffer, an expert on U.N. affairs at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington. “It is not solving anything. It’s not clear they have an understanding of what their role is there.”

Well, that's par for the course. The Blue Helmets usually head for the tall grass when they encounter real soldiers, guerrillas, or fighters with any training of experience.

[TurboZamboni]

3.5 billion in Chicago could buy a lot of favors.

[Psalm 73]

The UN has been raping and pillaging the Congo since late 1950’s.

I know JBS material causes some on FR to wince - but the Fearful Master was a great read - just the documented events in the Belgian Congo/Katanga alone make the book worth keeping around.

(Sadly - loaned my copy out years ago and never returned).

[Psalm 73]

“The Blue Helmets usually head for the tall grass when they encounter real soldiers, guerrillas....”

We may live to find that out someday. Personally. Here.

[BBell]

Remember Executive Outcomes? For 12.8 Billion they could have ran the Country Peacefully and Efficiently. But the U.N. would rather see mass slaughters and mass rapes than see a Mercenary Group make any real progress.

[GeronL]

did anyone think the UN would make it better?

[Jack Hammer]

UN troops stuck in some arse-backward sh*t hole off in the back of beyond not motivated to Save the World at the cost of their own lives?

Wow, there’s a shocker.

Maybe that gaggle of big-mouthed eggheads and Leftist criminals in New York has its head stuck too far up its collective nether aperture to deal with simple things like reality.