Saturday, September 10, 2016

Angelina Jolie Wants More Women U.N. Peacekeepers

People: Angelina Jolie Pitt Calls for Inclusion of Women in Peacekeeping During Surprise Speech at U.N. Summit

Angelina Jolie Pitt has called for a "new way of conducting peacekeeping" focused on the inclusion of women during a surprise visit to a United Nations summit in London.

In her speech, the actress and UNHCR Special Envoy encouraged countries to sign an agreement pledging to increase the involvement of women throughout the peacekeeping process.

"Peacekeeping forces can only gain and keep the trust of the local populations if they are able to engage with women, as well as men, in that community," Jolie said. "When I met senior commanders a short while ago to discuss the challenges of the security tasks they faced, they were clear that women peacekeepers and police officers are essential to local consent and operational effectiveness."

Read more ....

Update: Angelina Jolie says UN undermined by sexual abuse by peacekeepers (The Guardian).

WNU Editor: She is right.


Aizino Smith said...

1) She is not volunteering.

2) She also not one to work out all the nuts and bolts of such deployments.

3) The UN is awesome at peacekeeping

I know a American peacekeeper who did essentially nothing in the Spanish Sahara. As far as I could gather the job of the UN in Spanish Sahara was watch the Moroccan military throw dead goats in wells to deny resources to Polisario.

All the peackeeping in Somalia gave us was repeated calls for Sharia law in Minneapolis, future calls for sharia law in in Minneapolis, home grown Al Shabaab terrorists, more catcalls from the peanut gallery of the Left, dead Pakistanis, dead Americans, etc.

All Jolie is, is a rich thespian.

Still With Human Feelings! said...

All you are is an anti Western hack. Can't you find anything good to say about someone who is trying to do good and inspire others to think in a common and compassionate way about the impoverished and refugees. You are a pompous ass in your constant negativity. I have seen and experienced the needs and plight of those poor people, you contribute nothing but acerbic rhetoric. And you seem to enjoy your hatred.

D.Plowman said...

She is very naive, always has been.

Anonymous said...


B.Poster said...

"Very naive", I think this is an accurate description of her. I think she should vokunteer to serve in this role herself and she could organize this force contributing her own money to bring it to fruition.

Of course we will see none of that. Doing what she is currently doing gains her fanulous publicity, costs nothing, and she knows she will NEVER be called on to actually do anything. If she were serious about public service, she could offer to help American Christian churches feed hungry children in America. These groups do fabulous work eith very limited financing. Of course to do this means no publicity and generally negative publucity and could/would carry with it a financial cost.

Her precious career might even be damaged. She would be helping children and those in need though. Of course that isn't the goal.

Anonymous said...

Everyone has a different task, aptitude and purpose. Nice job judging her though. As far as a career, as an actress she has done nothing to distinguish herself. But still she has used her notoriety for good. I think that is commendable. And incidentally, the UN and their advocates work for the advancement of all displaced and disadvantaged, ideally.

Aizino Smith said...


I'll judge her and judge her harshly.

When someone urges their community to storm the castle they better have a plan and the plan had better be somewhat good.

I give her no more slack than say George Clooney. George wanted us to go into Darfur. I have no love of the Islamic supremiicst in Khartoum.

So we go in to save the people of Darfur from the predations of The Arab Muslim masters in Khartoum.

Then what? We go in. The Liberals will give us ridiculous ROE and other objectives. Will get hurt and look weak. the libs will act all hurts and accuse of lowering our standing and respect in the world. The liberals will go out and make sure that our standing does suffer. Rinse repeat.

We saw this before in Somalia.

The UN's soldiers were causing a lot of rape and suffering in The Democratic Republic of Congo. Is adding some women going to improve that?

If so how many women? 10%, 30%, 50%, 70% or 100% of the force being women?

I think 10% would be a disaster. If it were 100% and they could hold their own, maybe we could eliminate the rape part of UN deployments in Africa.

If they could hold their own. Something like a modern day version of the Dahomey Amazons would work. They were more feared and more disciplined than the male warriors.

Turfy77 said...

Just stick to acting woman

Turfy77 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.