Mogadishu Mission and Foreign Interests of USA

There are basic human rights that are expected to be given to each person and everyone needs to uphold those rights no matter what the situation is. When other nations start getting involved there are huge implications that become a global issue rather than a local nation

In early 1990 Somalia was going through a civil war. Their dictator Mohammed Farrah had order the closer of all food transportation that entered the country. He`s goal was to kill his own people by starving them to death. About 300,000 civilians had died of hunger. In response, the united States send troops to Somalia to capture Mohammed Farrah., the self-proclaimed president of Somalia. They soon found out that the best strategic was to capture Omar Salad Elmi and Abdi Hassan Awale Queybdiid, two of Mohammed top advisers. The special mission was to be done by experienced man as well as new recruits. The operation was supposed to have taken about 30 minutes on Octuber 3, 1993. There objective were the two top advisers of Mohammed that

The structure and power of the UN Security Council is a major factor regarding how some states are able to exert power over the UN. For example, any permanent member of the UNSC (China, Russia, the US, Britain or France) can veto any resolution proposed as they please. As a result of this we have seen much needed resolutions been dropped due to permanent members vetoing due to national interests. In the case of the conflict in Syria, both resolutions proposed by the UNSC were vetoed by Russia and China as they went against their national interests. In this way, the permanent five members are certainly more powerful than the UN. Furthermore, states sovereignty imposes limits on the extent to which the UN can protect human rights. States sovereignty can also mean that states can refuse to sign international agreements that are seen as against their national interests. For example, the US’s refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Nevertheless, the UN does exhibit some power over states. It can authorise the use of force or peacekeepers or economic sanctions against states where internal conflict has occurred. For example, in 2006 the UNSC authorised the use of peacekeeping troops in Sudan in response to the conflict in Darfur. Similarly in 2011, the UNSC authorised the use of force to protect civilians against the attacks of the Gaddafi regime. Conclusively, although the UN has the ability to authorise various

If nations knew that there would be consequences to their calculations of profit from the genocide, that would cause them to lean towards the right and not the wrong. Taking away the benefits of any alliance or trade, to the ones that cause genocide would intensify the seriousness of their atrocities. Together, every member of all diplomatic nations, must have the right to intervene in military interventions. Solving the issue before it happened would have been helpful when the Serbians manipulated Bosnians by feeding the children cookies, and assuring them not to be afraid. The United Nations should have not been deceived by these actions, nor abandoned 25,000 Bosnians gathering in a United Nations base, wanting protection. Not only did the Unite Nations ignore this situation, but they claimed to not have any information about the Rwandan genocide that cause the deaths of 800,000 individuals. Therefore, we must hold our leaders accountable to their promises to alleviate the issues, otherwise they should be denied not to hold that

The first reason that the US did not intervene in Rwanda is the previous Black Hawk Down incident. This unfortunate event took place in 1993 when a group of soldiers attempted to make peace

History has been shown to repeat itself, and if we don't learn from it, we are doomed to repeat it. We have watched many genocides happen within the last decade, some of which the U.S. has intervened, and in some cases where they have not. The United States should not intervene in foreign countries for humanitarian reasons because the U.S. may lack investing the amount of troops and resources necessary to make the intervention successful ; that doctrine will be abused unless there is a self-interest at stake.

In 1991 when the dictator Mohammed Siad Barre was overthrown after 21 years in power, the UN forces hurriedly left and the country slid into civil war and famine. Full- scale war broke out a year later between the militias of General Mohamad Farah Aidid and his archrival, Ali Mahdi Mohamad and the United Nations watched silently, not even offering humanitarian assistance. The Somalis were angry and felt that the UN had abandoned the country. When some 500 Pakistani Blue Berets finally did come, they were ill-equipped. The Somalis were very suspicious of the UN and two months later they welcomed Operation Rescue because it was an American and no a UN initiative. Two days later, the US Ambassador Robert B. Oakley publicly embraced General Aidid

During his final days in office, President George W. Bush proposed to the United Nations to allow the deployment of American troops to Mogadishu to help aid the United Nations humanitarian efforts. The proposal was accepted by the United Nations and on December 9, 1992, approximately 20,000 American Troops were deployed to Somalia, known as Operation Restore Hope. The task force lead the United States was known as the United Task Force (UNITAF), the United States lead militaries from many countries such as Australia, Belgium, Botswana, Canada, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, India, Italy, morocco, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Tunisia, turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, and Zimbabwe. This task force was to continue the peacekeeping operation in Somalia and it would do so by providing the services to ensure that the humanitarian efforts continued, undisturbed, in delivering and distributing goods to the

By November of 1992, conditions were getting worse instead of better. Food was still being stolen and sold off to clan leaders while aid workers were threatened and attacked. Americans were stunned at the lawlessness and starvation. Thousands of troops were ordered into Somalia to assist in the aid by President George H. Bush. Now food was getting to the people that it was intended for but distrust for the American soldiers was growing after they often violated Somalis privacy by bursting into their homes and confiscating the weapons that was the Somalis only defense against the opposing clans.6 In March of 1993 the U.S. withdrew most of its troops leaving the security of the people to the UN. By this time anger was growing towards the outsiders and the UN took most of the fallout for that by being attacked regularly. Hostility grew even more when the UN announced that the clan led by Aidid was the one responsible for the lawlessness in Somalia.7 When the UN took sides against the most powerful warlord in Somalia, the attacks against the aid workers was stepped up. 24 Pakistani peace keepers were killed

In Mike Keefe’s cartoon he reveals the brutality of what happened it Sudan and how the UN could have done something to stop the massacre of the Sudanese people. Even after a horrific genocide occurred The UN were still slow to connect the dots of what happened. The genocide was “spelt” out right in front of the UN they still didn’t see what happened. They could have jumped in and prevented the killing from happening but instead did not come in till after the fact. The UN tried to ignore the fact of what was happening to avoid having to interfere with the ongoing genocide. Unless the killing is happening in their own back yard they are slow to react.

The Ambassador said, “we share the Chair's assessment that Al-Shabaab continues to pose a serious threat to peace and security in Somalia. They have been ramping up attacks after rejecting President Farmajo's amnesty offer.” He also expressed his support of “the request by the Head of the African Union Mission in Somalia for a surge in troops to enable AMISOM forces and the Somali National Army to decisively degrade and defeat Al-Shabaab.”

As United States foreign policy has matured in the wake of the Vietnam Conflict, a seemingly bloodless, less nationally controversial tool than war has emerged. The United States has begun to slap economic sanctions on rogue nations in lieu of or in addition to sending in the Armed Forces. This policy of sanctioning nations begs one to ponder the legitimacy thereof. A specific case to be examined is the Iraqi conflict. In response to Iraqís hostile takeover of Kuwait in 1990, the U.S along with United Nations implemented a sanction against Iraq. After the Gulf War had ceased, a treaty was drafted which included the lifting of the sanctions should Iraq agree to certain stipulations. To this date, the UN has

In August of 1992, President George Bush Sr. sent US soldiers into Somalia to provide humanitarian relief to those Somalis suffering from starvation. The major problems in Somalia started when President Mohammed Siad Barre was overthrown by a coalition of opposing clans. Although there were several opposing groups, the prominent one was led by Mohammed Farah Aidid. Following the overthrow of Barre, a massive power struggle ensued. These small scale civil wars led to the destruction of the agriculture in Somalia, which in turn led to the deprivation of food in large parts of the country. When the international community heard of this, large quantities of food were sent to ease Somali suffering. However, clan leaders like Aidid routinely

There are three members of the P5 in the Security Council that can be closely linked to the failure in Rwanda by the United Nations. It was very evident that aid could have been sent in because troops were sent into Rwanda to evacuate foreign expatriates, but the severe lack of political will to volunteer in order to protect Rwandan civilians became very apparent. (8) The first nation state that can be linked to this failure is the United States of America. Because of the failure that the United Nations had had in Somalia, the US had very little intention of entering another mission that did not meet their national or geopolitical interest. Once it was decided that a mission needed to be sent into Rwanda, both the United States and the United Kingdom advocated for the least expensive force that could be mustered, and these economic shortcomings ended up proving incredibly fatal. (8) Boutros Boutros-Ghali requested that 5000 troops be sent into Rwanda, but the United States then advocated strongly again

It is clear that some of the UN missions have received many restrictions from the host country authorities. Before the mission starts, the responsibility of the country’s leaders is to make the special agreement with the UN. The agreement is signed between the UN and the leaders of the government. Based on the agreement, the host nation’s leaders must support the UN peacekeeping operations in order to establish a safe working environment. The peacekeepers are supposed to achieve all tasks without any constraints from the host country authorities. Nevertheless, in some cases, this agreement is violated by political leaders of the country. For instance, in the Darfur crisis, Al-Bashir, who is the president of Sudan, played to local fear. He said that the “UN forces did not really provide peace in Darfur because they wish to recolonize Sudan and the UN military has a secret agenda” (Paterson, 2008, p. 18). Additionally, in 2004, the African Union (AU) peacekeepers begun to arrive in Darfur. The mission’s name was AU Mission in Sudan (AMIS) and was composed of about 7,500 soldiers and police from Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, and South Africa (Paterson, 2008). After two years, the UN and AU decided that the AMIS peacekeeping should be taken over by a UN force. The government of Sudan, headed by Omar al-Bashir, rejected any collaboration with the UN and noted that international military forces on its terrain would disrupt its independence (Paterson,