By Mr. Curmudgeon

As the delegates to Copenhagen’s climate summit debate the nuanced wording of a draconian measure to place billions of us carbon emitters under the thumb of U.N. climateers, a question comes to mind: what action will the U.N. take to enforce a global climate treaty once the measure is agreed upon? You can catch a revealing glimpse of the U.N.’s organizational skills as played out in the African Congo.

Several months ago, the United Nations agreed to allow the Congolese army to join the copious ranks of its 19,000-man Central African peacekeeping force. The world body went so far as to provide food and ammunition to the eager new recruits. A document from the United Nations peacekeeping force (know as MONUC) states that its mission to the Democratic Republic of the Congo is “…the maintenance of the cessation of hostilities and the disengagement and redeployment of the parties’ forces, the comprehensive disarmament, demobilization, resettlement and reintegration of all members of all armed groups…and the orderly withdrawal of all foreign forces…”

During the past three months, U.N. peacekeepers conducted Operation Kimia II, which was originally designed to disarm and repatriate Rwandan rebels. Instead, U.N. peacekeepers knowingly supported abusive “military operations,” says Human Rights Watch.

The New York Times reports that the U.N.’s Congolese contingent failed to read the fine print of their peacekeeping mandate. Instead, they “killed hundreds of civilians, gang-raped girls and even cut the heads off some young men.”

And what, you might ask, was the response from the U.N. under secretary general for peacekeeping operations? “We knew this was a risky operation,” Alain Le Roy told the New York Times, “We have no other option.”

Alain Le Roy may feel he has no choice but to feed and arm marauding killers, but the United States should know better than to make binding agreements with a nihilistic organization that refuses to distinguish between peacekeepers and predators.