Wednesday, August 01, 2007

UN approves 26,000 peacekeepers for Darfur

Here's an interesting article describing a growing role of the UN in Africa. In addition to the 26,000 UN-led forces to be deployed in Darfur, they apparently have 17,000 on the ground in the Congo and 16,000 in Southern Sudan. Interesting that Chinese soldiers will be comprising a small portion of the force.

Hmmm, that's 59,000 UN forces in just the three largest actions they're involved in. Does that make the UN a world that might wind up in conflicts against others, notably Israel, or the US?

While we pray the forces result in peace in the region, it sounds like a situation worth watching closely. Sounds more like Star Wars (and the Revelation of John) all the time...

Sir Chuck


  1. UN troops are incompetant and don't do much except stand around and watch. They can't keep peace very well if the raiders only have to detour around them a few hours to get to their prey. Evangelicals overestimate the power of the UN. No Great Power will let it be used contrary to it's own interests so it is only used alledgedly to keep peace in the Third World. In reality it doesn't do even that very well as local warlords will not obey unless persuaded and the UN is seldom willing or able to "persuade".
    The biggest scandel about the UN is not that they are to high-handed but that some of them have been known to "go native" and take advantage of local troubles for private gain.

    Sir Jason

  2. The best use of the UN might be to seal off pre-agreed neutral zones. A power which tells them to leave once they are there is pretty blatantly saying, "here I come".