UN Security Council Rejects Ban's Opposition To Somalia Force

[NASSIR]

UN Security Council Rejects Ban's Opposition To Somalia Force

 

UNITED NATIONS (AP)--The U.N. Security Council rejected Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's opposition to the possible deployment of U.N. peacekeeping troops to Somalia and underlined its call for contingency planning for a U.N. force.

 

In August, the council called on the secretary-general to begin planning for the possible deployment of U.N. peacekeepers to replace an African Union force that has struggled to put troops in the chaotic country.

 

But against a backdrop of heavy fighting and growing insecurity, Ban opposed the deployment in a report to the council earlier this month and suggested instead a robust multinational force or a coalition of volunteer nations to help restore security.

 

In a statement after a briefing and closed-door consultations on Ban's report, the council "underlined the need to continue to actively develop contingency plans for the possible deployment of a peacekeeping force as part of an enhanced U.N. integrated strategy in Somalia."

 

Indonesia's U.N. Ambassador Marty Natalegawa, the current council president, said what this means is that the council wants contingency planning about a possible U.N. peacekeeping force integrated with U.N. plans to improve humanitarian aid and promote political reconciliation in Somalia.

 

"There is greater clarity of recognition that the council needs to take this forward, and we'll take this one step at a time, mindful, however, of the urgency of the situation," Natalegawa said.

 

Council diplomats said there was widespread support for preparing to deploy a U.N. peacekeeping force quickly when the conditions are right, but not to authorize it immediately. The diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity because the consultations were closed, said members didn't discuss Ban's proposal to deploy "a coalition of the willing" instead.

 

The secretary-general, speaking to reporters after the council meeting, said "my recommendation was that a peacekeeping operation is not an option at this time."

 

Ban said the Somalia situation has to be addressed on two tracks - promoting a dialogue between the transitional government and opposition leaders with the aim of national reconciliation and helping the African Union force with money and equipment so it can operate more effectively.

 

"These are two tracks which I'm going to promote, and I'm now working on this strategic assessment, how we should deal with this Somalia situation," he said, adding that this will include sending assessment teams to Somalia.

 

Somalia has not had a functioning government since clan-based warlords toppled dictator Mohamed Siad Barre in 1991 and then turned on each other, sinking the poverty-stricken Horn of Africa nation of seven million people into chaos.

 

The rout last December of the Islamic fundamentalist movement that controlled most of Somalia by Somali government troops and Ethiopian soldiers allowed the country's weak U.N.-backed transitional government to enter the capital, Mogadishu, for the first time since it was established in 2004. But heavy fighting between insurgents and Ethiopian troops has flared again, leaving hundreds dead and wounded.

 

The U.N. authorized the African Union to send an 8,000-strong peacekeeping force to Somalia in February to calm the country, but only 1,800 troops from Uganda are on the ground.

 

The Security Council expressed support for the AU force and urged greater international assistance to strengthen it.

 

Council members also expressed "strong concern about the deteriorating political, security and humanitarian situation" and called on all parties "to renounce violence and to engage in an all-inclusive peace process."

 

South Africa's U.N. Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo, calling the situation in Somalia "heartbreaking," said "the U.N. has to find a way to go in there."

 

The (U.N.) Charter says maintain international peace and security everywhere," he said. "It doesn't say except in Somalia."

[Naxar Nugaaleed]

good news

[BiLaaL]

The UN appears to have finally landed itself a cool-headed, sensible Secretary-General. A UN force will only confound our problems. Although Ban is not entirely against the idea of bringing a UN force (he has plans for a 'multinational' force) to Somalia, his opposition to an early deployment is welcomed.

[Armchair Politician]

You can't "create peace" through more war. This is a ****** idea.

[Gabbal]

Positive development. The more international focus on Somalia leading to more involvement by the international community, the less Ethiopa is able to advance its secret vindictive interests in the nation.

 

An international peace-keeping force de-legitimizes the need to have Ethiopian troops on the ground which will go a long way in stabilizing the situation. I cannot conceive why those in support of resisting Ethiopia would be opposed to such a development.

[Fabregas]

Peacekeepers(so they call them) wont have a mandate to fight "terrorists" in Somalia. The Americans see Somalia as the new front against the war with Alqaeda. Therefore, on the one hand they want international troops to help prop up the T.F.G, but on the other hand they are urging the Ethiopians to stay and destroy the Alshabab network. As the Americans don't have the ability to send troops to combat Alshabab and other militias, the Ethiopians are the only ones capable of doing this job. Also the Ethiopians see the Alshabab militia and their associates as a serious threat to their national interests. The Alshabab and Hassan Turki militias have stepped up their attacks and are reported to be gaining a little more ground, thus the Somali conflict is not even at stage one.

 

Ethiopians will send more troops to Somalia(as they already doing) and the international so called community will encourage the Ethiopians to take such actions, whilst on the other hand hypocritically calling for "foreign troops" to withdraw from Somalia. Remember that the intial U.S backed resolution called for no "neighbouring countries" to send troops to Somalia, however it was an open secret that the Ethiopians had sent thousands of troops to Somalia. Even the African Union let slip that they supported Ethiopia's intervention in Somalia even though it was against their resolutions. The Arab league, also another supporter of the Ethiopian invasion, is again hypocritically calling for their removal whilst they are secretly supporting their efforts to "combat terrorism".As we have mentioned, the Americans would prefer them to stay and combat the so called "terrorists". This all means that any amount of "peacekeeping troops" will not destabilize the situation, because the Ethiopians are not leaving Somalia anytime soon whether or not there are peacekeepers. They will stay in Somalia so long as their is the existence of armed Somali groups in opposition to them, in particular Islamist militias.

 

Ban Ki Moon should know full well the reasons for failure of of so called "coalition of the willing" forces and the U.N in Afghanistan and Iraq. The so called Nato and international troops as simply seen by those in armed opposition as taking sides in the conflict, thus they are either forced to take part in armed combat or just sit by and watch idly as the Ugandans are doing in Somalia.

 

The only way international peacekeepers are useful is when they actually have a "peace to keep" in those countries. This means a ceasefire will have to be negotiated first before any troops are deployed.We saw this in the ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel. In this case it was succesful because both sides agreed to end violence and the peacekeepers are keeping them apart at the border.But sending troops to Somalia when there is full scale combat without agreeing a coordinated ceasfre, is pretty much a useless excerise! Infact I am expecting any employment of such troops to lead to an escalation in violence!Marka, get used to Xabashi troops on Somali troops........

[Castro]

Originally posted by HornAfrique:

Positive development. The more international focus on Somalia leading to more involvement by the international community, the less Ethiopa is able to advance its secret vindictive interests in the nation.

Agreed.

[xiinfaniin]

We need Nigerian, Kenyan, or Algerian force, any force to remove Ethiopians from somali soil or dilute their unparalleled influence on our affairs. Every somali should accept that for the mere fact hes/her people are divided and need time to regroup to fight Ethiopians...they cant really fight today as they are!

[Seekknowledge]

Will the so called AlShabab accept Nigerian, Kenyan or Algerian forces?

[Naxar Nugaaleed]

who cares what they will accept, perhaps refugee status in afghanistan?