Wednesday, July 26, 2006
THEY CAN BE QUICK AFTER ALL
Naturally, the BBC reports:
Of course, the devil Israel. Curiously, though, for that report no one at the Beeb seemed to have raised certain issues with the Secretary General. Why not is unclear, because as the UN itself told us YESTERDAY, July 25:
Here is the report link, from which you can click to a .pdf. It covers the period January 21 to July 18. On the first page it makes this astonishing observation:
Then, on page 8, we also get this:
As you see above, the UN web site news piece had told us that report, which tells us at the top of page 1 that it was "Distr.: General 21 July 2006", was "released yesterday". That yesterday would have been July 24. So what happened over the interim three days?
Probably nothing. Because Annan (and staff) had finalized a pre-planned timeframe report which was due to be concluded with the date July 18. Evidently, it was to be July 18, NO MATTER WHAT! Such demonstrates a UN that utterly lacks reasonable flexibility -- for no one apparently thought it might be more timely and relevant to cut the larger report's concluding date BACK to July 11, and then compose an addendum "emergency paper" covering only area events July 12 to, say, July 18. That latter would have thoroughly informed us exclusively that there is a war in southern Lebanon. After all, from July 12 remember, UN observers were in the midst of that war.
Funnily enough, though, the UN was able, within a single day, to get out an "initial report" blaming Israel for four observers' killings. So it can be done? The United Nations CAN write and publish relevant and timely reports very quickly when it really wants to do so?
If I were one of the governments whence those dead observers had been seconded to the UN (Austria, Canada, China and Finland), I'd be asking the Secretary General these perhaps halfway pertinent questions:
Naturally, the BBC reports:
UN peacekeepers in south Lebanon contacted Israeli troops 10 times before an Israeli bomb killed four of them, an initial UN report says.
The post was hit by a precision-guided missile after six hours of shelling, diplomats familiar with the probe say...
...Israel is conducting an investigation into the deaths, and has rejected accusations made by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan that the targeting of the UN position was "apparently deliberate"...
The post was hit by a precision-guided missile after six hours of shelling, diplomats familiar with the probe say...
...Israel is conducting an investigation into the deaths, and has rejected accusations made by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan that the targeting of the UN position was "apparently deliberate"...
Of course, the devil Israel. Curiously, though, for that report no one at the Beeb seemed to have raised certain issues with the Secretary General. Why not is unclear, because as the UN itself told us YESTERDAY, July 25:
...In his report, released yesterday, Mr. Annan said the upsurge in violence since 12 July had “radically changed the context” in which UNIFIL operates and he recommended its mandate be increased only for another month while all possible options for southern Lebanon are worked out.
Before the recent violence, the Lebanese Government had called for a six-month extension of UNIFIL’s mandate, but Mr. Annan wrote that the “circumstances conducive to United Nations peacekeeping do not exist.”
Before the recent violence, the Lebanese Government had called for a six-month extension of UNIFIL’s mandate, but Mr. Annan wrote that the “circumstances conducive to United Nations peacekeeping do not exist.”
Here is the report link, from which you can click to a .pdf. It covers the period January 21 to July 18. On the first page it makes this astonishing observation:
...The situation in the UNIFIL area of operation remained tense and volatile, although it was generally quiet during most of the reporting period. This situation completely changed on 12 July, when the current hostilities broke out and the area was plunged into the most serious conflict in decades...
Then, on page 8, we also get this:
Until the current crisis erupted, UNlFlL continued its efforts to maintain the ceasefire in the area of operation through ground and air patrols, observation from fixed positions and close contact with the parties, the latter with a view to correcting the violations, resolving incidents and preventing escalation. Its operations were concentrated along the Blue Line, although the Force maintained a few rear positions. The United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO), through Observer Group Lebanon, supported UNIFIL in the fulfilment of its mandate. Since the beginning of hostilities on 12 July, UNIFIL military personnel have been confined to their positions, and during the heaviest exchanges of fire had to take shelter in bunkers. The Force's operations have consequently been significantly limited, and it has not been able to conduct its regular air or ground patrols.
As you see above, the UN web site news piece had told us that report, which tells us at the top of page 1 that it was "Distr.: General 21 July 2006", was "released yesterday". That yesterday would have been July 24. So what happened over the interim three days?
Probably nothing. Because Annan (and staff) had finalized a pre-planned timeframe report which was due to be concluded with the date July 18. Evidently, it was to be July 18, NO MATTER WHAT! Such demonstrates a UN that utterly lacks reasonable flexibility -- for no one apparently thought it might be more timely and relevant to cut the larger report's concluding date BACK to July 11, and then compose an addendum "emergency paper" covering only area events July 12 to, say, July 18. That latter would have thoroughly informed us exclusively that there is a war in southern Lebanon. After all, from July 12 remember, UN observers were in the midst of that war.
Funnily enough, though, the UN was able, within a single day, to get out an "initial report" blaming Israel for four observers' killings. So it can be done? The United Nations CAN write and publish relevant and timely reports very quickly when it really wants to do so?
_____________________________
If I were one of the governments whence those dead observers had been seconded to the UN (Austria, Canada, China and Finland), I'd be asking the Secretary General these perhaps halfway pertinent questions:
1) What were those "unarmed observers" doing posted there -- over 12 days AFTER combat had started?All in all, the UN has evidently learned NOTHING from its experience in Bosnia. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, July 26, 2006
2) Why -- once it was quite clear there was no "peace" to "keep" -- had they not been evacuated?
3) Certainly the UN didn't leave them exposed "deliberately"?
4) And the Secretary General would not be trying a high-profile blaming of Israel -- "This coordinated artillery and aerial attack on a long established and clearly marked United Nations post at Khiyam occurred despite personal assurances given to me by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that United Nations positions would be spared Israeli fire." -- in order to deflect attention from the UN's own poor management of the UN observers' situation, would he?
