| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| AUSTRALIA refuses requests for troops to protect UN |
| 2004-10-17 |
| AUSTRALIA has quietly rejected diplomatic overtures from the United Nations and the US to contribute to a military force to protect UN officials in Iraq. Hat's off to Down Under! The requests, made through Australia's diplomatic missions in New York and Washington, came as UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan was struggling to gain international support for a security force to protect UN officials working in Iraq. Kofi should be able to foot the bill out of his own pocket, through Saddam's payoffs. With only a handful of small nations, including Fiji, responding to the call for help, the UN has had to fall back on the fully stretched US military for protection. It has sought at least 500 military personnel or police as well as other specialist advisers to ensure the security of the UN mission in Baghdad. The lack of adequately trained security forces has handicapped the UN in its determination to assume a wider role in Iraq and assist the Iraqi Government with planning for the January 2005 national election. The safety of its officials has been a fundamental concern since a massive truck bomb attack in Baghdad in August 2003 killed UN personnel, including special representative to Iraq Sergio Vieira de Mello. Foreign Minister Alexander Downer confirmed the informal requests yesterday, saying that many countries had been approached to supply security forces for the UN Assistance Mission to Iraq. He denied that Australia had come under any overt pressure to lift its military contribution to Iraq. Mr Downer stressed there were no plans to lift Australia's troop contribution there, which currently includes about 250 servicemen and women based in Baghdad. "We have done a fairly substantial job in Iraq," he said. "We don't have any intention of sending more troops." The US-led multinational force in Iraq is struggling to contain a steadily growing insurgency across Iraq. Military experts concede there are simply not enough troops on the ground to properly stabilise the country in the lead-up to the January elections. Senior Australian military officers believe it is only a matter of time before a more formal US request is made for extra Australian military assistance in Iraq. John Howard has said consistently that Australia would not send extra troops to Iraq, after having made a vital contribution at the "sharp end" of the war in March-April of 2003. Australia has about 920 servicemen and women in the Iraq theatre, including more than 200 in Baghdad. The Government announced last week that Canberra would provide training and equipment to the Fijian army, which will provide a guard unit and a personal protection detachment to UNAMI. "Australia strongly supports UN efforts to establish a significant presence in Iraq, involving the full range of agencies and with appropriate security protection," the two ministers said. |
| Posted by:Mark Espinola |
| #11 I can understand why Kofi wouldn't want US soldiers around for protection 'cause they're big and mean and they have guns and tanks and determination. Plus they're always shooting people and blowing stuff up. Hey, wait a minute! That's exactly the kind of guys I'd want protecting me. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2004-10-17 8:37:41 PM |
| #10 Do any of you have any links that'll I'll agree are proof? No? See? This is easy. |
| Posted by: Kofi Kofi Cattauh 2004-10-17 7:42:09 PM |
| #9 "rejected diplomatic overtures from...the United States" US Ambassador to Australian PM at lunch,"Say,do you guys want to send some troops to guard those useless UN buggers in Iraq?Didn't think so.Another diplomatic overture shot down.You make some fine wine here,refill my glass and we'll toast your re-election." |
| Posted by: Stephen 2004-10-17 6:47:46 PM |
| #8 Somehow it's gratifying to know that there's no free lunch. "UN wankers" is quite fitting. |
| Posted by: wits0 2004-10-17 5:35:57 PM |
| #7 Heh-heh-heh. Serves the UN wankers right. Ask the Phrogs, Coffee - they're not doing anything important or useful at present. (As usual.) |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2004-10-17 5:11:51 PM |
| #6 The UN is hated in Iraq. No amount of protection will be enough for them. No US or Colation troops to protect these vile, corrupt assclowns. "The US-led multinational force in Iraq is struggling to contain a steadily growing insurgency across Iraq." The facts don't support this. This is Kerry/ The US out of the UN and the UN out of the US. They are a lot of back stabbing cowards and appeasers. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-10-17 5:01:13 PM |
| #5 US out of the UN and the UN out of the US. |
| Posted by: SR71 2004-10-17 4:23:03 PM |
| #4 Last year Coalition forces offered thier protection,the UN got boomed and ran.Know thet are begging for our troops to protect them.Screw'em.Mike S.sure does love the UN,maybe he should offer his services. |
| Posted by: raptor 2004-10-17 3:32:52 PM |
| #3 Maybe it's just me, but Wo sind die deutschen Soldaten?Où sont les soldats français? Kerry thinks he can get France and Germany's assistance in Iraq, and Kofi-cup can't even get help defending UN personnel???? |
| Posted by: molokai_man 2004-10-17 3:12:55 PM |
| #2 Alaska, That's right, plus where was the U.N. when the Coalition needed troops at the beginning the Iraqi war? (standing in line in Baghdad with their hands out.) |
| Posted by: Mark Espinola 2004-10-17 2:50:17 PM |
| #1 The US and Australia have lots to do without diverting important manpower into protecting UN leeches. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2004-10-17 2:36:46 PM |