Skip to comments.
UN Authorizes Intervention Force for Congo (NOT peacekeepers)
AP via ABC ^
| March 28, 2013 (AP)
| EDITH M. LEDERER
Posted on 03/28/2013 4:13:20 PM PDT by Pan_Yan
The U.N. Security Council authorized a new "intervention brigade" for Congo on Thursday with an unprecedented mandate to take military action against rebel groups to help bring peace to the country's conflict-wracked east.
The resolution, which the council adopted unanimously, gives the brigade a mandate to carry out offensive operations alone or with Congolese army troops to neutralize and disarm armed groups.
The brigade is unprecedented in U.N. peacekeeping because of its offensive mandate. The resolution, however, states clearly that it would be established for one year "on an exceptional basis and without creating a precedent" to the principles of U.N. peacekeeping.
The resolution, sponsored by France, the United States and Togo, would give the brigade a mandate to operate "in a robust, highly mobile and versatile manner" to ensure that armed group can't seriously threaten government authority or the security of civilians.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: africa; congo; un
I thought a couple of years ago with Libya and Ivory Coast we were seeing a big shift in the United Nations involvement in the affairs of sovereign countries. They are starting to authorize more and more aggressive participation in wars.
posted on 03/28/2013 4:13:20 PM PDT
the un is offensive without this.
posted on 03/28/2013 4:14:39 PM PDT
by bravo whiskey
(We should not fear our government. Our government shoud fear us.)
UN sanctions armed intervention? That means Obama will send young Americans will die. It means absolutely nothing more.
posted on 03/28/2013 4:17:04 PM PDT
Waging aggressive war makes the UN war criminals....but who is going to stop them.
posted on 03/28/2013 4:17:11 PM PDT
(This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
Yeah, because it worked so well in the 60’s.
If there had been a UN in 1776 the revolution may well have turned out differently.
posted on 03/28/2013 4:23:20 PM PDT
by Terry Mross
(This country will fail to exist in my lifetime. And I'm gettin' up there in age.)
Yeah, because it worked so well in the 60s.
Stop being so negative. That Korean thing worked itself out, right?
posted on 03/28/2013 4:44:24 PM PDT
(I love it when spell check selects every single word in my post.)
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson