What David Miliband said was that "British troops WILL NOT be sent to the Congo at the moment". So we have nothing to worry or make a fuzz about, at the moment that is.
I think there are other U.N. member countries that should be considered as candidates for a peace keeping mission to the Congo before us. Belgium was the original colonial power in that part of the world and there are African countries much nearer and with more to concern them than us.
If in what I think is an unlikely event that we do sent troops out there as part of our obligation as UN members then so be it. We can hardly be members of the UN and not play a part in it`s peace keeping responsibilities. But neither is it necessary for us to be at the head of the queue on this occasion.
There should be plenty of UN troops from Africa to solve this problem. The trouble is their mandate is too weak, as is the Congolese army who seem as out of control as the rebels. Maybe this is one for Chinese , Indian or Pakastani UN troops if the African countries are unwilling or unable to cope. A friend was there as a UN commander two or three years ago and rerettably found the UN troops then available were not very good. This seems a bit like Afghanistan where some UN troops will not put themselves in harms way.
"some UN troops will not put themselves in harms way."
I'm afraid this is human nature. Regardless of what they are told at the time, most people join up to protect their own country, not someone else's.
I must confess that I was never quite as comfortable serving in a dedicated NATO position, under foreign control, as when I was dedicated to home defence, regardless of where I was actually serving at the time.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.