So … if the USA goes into Iraq without firm Security Council backing, would the UN peacekeepers have to try to stop the US Marines from crossing the DMZ?
I don’t understand that article at all. Why on earth would Kuwait and the U.S. Marines want to cut holes and install more gates in the fence? So people can drive through, obviously, but in which direction? The U.S. invasion force, if and when it gets the green light, heading towards Baghdad? Why wouldn’t they just roll their tanks over the fence? Seems like it would be faster.
In a word–
It’s to keep refugees from coming back in the other direction, of course.
Usually peacekeepers are only allowed to observe and defend themselves. I suppose they’ll have to stand by and watch, unless a new UN directive changes their role in some way.
So they’re cutting holes in the fence and installing more gates to facilitate the presumed flood of post-Saddam’s War Iraqi refugees? So they really ought to be checking with the UN before they do that, looks like.
And it looks like what the UN observers would do if the U.S. invaded Iraq without Security Council backing would be–they’d “investigate all violations and communicate their findings”. They only have a single mechanized infantry battalion to deal with “small-scale violations”. I don’t think 350,000 U.S. troops pouring through the fence would count as a “small-scale violation”.
So, no, it doesn’t look like they have a mandate to try to physically stop a huge number of U.S. troops. Or Iraqi troops, come to that. They’re basically “cops”, and cops aren’t usually expected to hold off the entire Red Army.
This is more in their line.
Well, hey, I just found this. They were cutting holes for tanks, not refugees.
And then I found this, from Friday.