Juje Posted March 21, 2008 SECRETARY-GENERAL’S SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE, IN BRIEFING TO SECURITY COUNCIL Noting that the Secretary-General’s report envisaged a total force of 15 to 21 infantry battalions, with a military component of up to 27,000 and a possible police component of up to 1,500, there could be no such deployment without an actual peace to keep. Why had the Council authorized AMISOM when peace did not exist? Uganda urged the Council to move quickly to mobilize the international community, under United Nations leadership, to provide the necessary logistical and financial support to enable the full deployment of AMISOM. The Secretary-General should respond favourably to the African Union Chairperson’s proposal for the provision of $817.5 million in financial, logistical and technical support for the African mission. A full AMISOM deployment would serve as a stabilization force pending the arrival of United Nations peacekeepers. Uganda was in Somalia for a good cause and would stay to course. Full UN Report Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fabregas Posted March 21, 2008 Why had the Council authorized AMISOM when peace did not exist? Because it was widely believed that Ethiopian troops would quickly oust the I.C.U and then UN troops would also move swiftly to protect the T.F.G. This rationale was largely based on Zenawi's belief that there would be little resistance after the Baidoa battle and most SOmalis could be brought for cheap money( by bribing clan elders). Of course now we know that Ethiopians and are stuck in Somalia; and Somalia is stuck in drought, displacement, hunger, inflation and war! Most countries are thus reluctant to send troops to a warzone, especially Somalia( remember 90s?). So the current situation( sadlY) probably looks set to continue probably until the end of this year and perhaps even well into 2009? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
