This is so frustrating to see, because nothing has changed since the Yugoslav civil war. It's the same situation again; the UN troops have the firepower to easily take over entire regions, but are stifled but stupid and idiotic laws dreamed up by academic bureaucrats with white gloves. It just pisses me off.
The problem here is that Peacekeeping, an activity that the United Nations pioneered, was developed for situations completely different from that of places like the Congo. (Quite honestly the cognitive dissonance among the public of what peacekeeping IS and what it is though to be is incredible.)
If you look up the origins of peacekeeping, it was designed as a method of ensuring that two parties (states) that had already agreed to a ceasefire kept word. Peacekeepers were basically monitors.
Since the 90s, the mission profiles for peacekeepers have changed dramatically. But the rules under which they operate haven't.
If they are ever to be effective in situations where they would essentially be there to create order, their mandates and rules must adapt.They must be allowed to take up a more active role in securing peace and order.
That said, the expansion of peacekeepers' mandates raises several issues, notably that of multilateral intervention: when and where is it appropriate?
As Fareed Zakaria wrote in his latest book, legitimacy is important in today's world. And the United Nations is one of the greatest sources of legitimacy for any action taken in the international stage. But even UN-sanctioned actions can be opposed by authoritarian states who can claim violations of their sovereignty. Something that the United Nations is ideologically bound to uphold.
Another issue often discussed is the lack of political support or interest from member states of the missions themselves. The Rwandan Genocide is a clear reminder of this issue.
That said, I hope that the reforms suggested in the Brahimi Report are implemented to good effect, so that peacekeeping can adapt to the realities of the situation on the ground.
just stupid. the UN and its mandate make no sense. Corruption is the target--send an army of paper pushers--that would be much more effective. they need rule of law, not more arms.
The Rules of Engagement for the peacekeepers MUST be changed. Regional groups like ECOMOG were enforcers, and they succeeded in operations in Liberia and Sierre Leone.
This is so frustrating to see, because nothing has changed since the Yugoslav civil war. It's the same situation again; the UN troops have the firepower to easily take over entire regions, but are stifled but stupid and idiotic laws dreamed up by academic bureaucrats with white gloves. It just pisses me off.
lendmeurears 2 years ago
The problem here is that Peacekeeping, an activity that the United Nations pioneered, was developed for situations completely different from that of places like the Congo. (Quite honestly the cognitive dissonance among the public of what peacekeeping IS and what it is though to be is incredible.)
If you look up the origins of peacekeeping, it was designed as a method of ensuring that two parties (states) that had already agreed to a ceasefire kept word. Peacekeepers were basically monitors.
Girder2 2 years ago 3
Since the 90s, the mission profiles for peacekeepers have changed dramatically. But the rules under which they operate haven't.
If they are ever to be effective in situations where they would essentially be there to create order, their mandates and rules must adapt.They must be allowed to take up a more active role in securing peace and order.
That said, the expansion of peacekeepers' mandates raises several issues, notably that of multilateral intervention: when and where is it appropriate?
Girder2 2 years ago
As Fareed Zakaria wrote in his latest book, legitimacy is important in today's world. And the United Nations is one of the greatest sources of legitimacy for any action taken in the international stage. But even UN-sanctioned actions can be opposed by authoritarian states who can claim violations of their sovereignty. Something that the United Nations is ideologically bound to uphold.
Girder2 2 years ago
Another issue often discussed is the lack of political support or interest from member states of the missions themselves. The Rwandan Genocide is a clear reminder of this issue.
That said, I hope that the reforms suggested in the Brahimi Report are implemented to good effect, so that peacekeeping can adapt to the realities of the situation on the ground.
Girder2 2 years ago
Why do they give them ak-47's? Didn't the geneva conventions outlaw the use of ak's in war?
garvess 3 years ago
the geneva convention has not banned any weapons in the use of a war
the geneva convention sets the stantard for internation law and humanitarian concern
weapons of mass destruction are banned but not by the geneva convention
the status of refugee is also refered as the geneva convention though it doesnt belong to it
the ak 47 is not a banned weapon by internation law
usa303 3 years ago 2
To hell with the UN so called "peacekeepers" and NATO.
xxashyy 3 years ago
just stupid. the UN and its mandate make no sense. Corruption is the target--send an army of paper pushers--that would be much more effective. they need rule of law, not more arms.
bajawind 3 years ago 2
The Rules of Engagement for the peacekeepers MUST be changed. Regional groups like ECOMOG were enforcers, and they succeeded in operations in Liberia and Sierre Leone.
ebiekem 3 years ago
A waste of money with no results except as witnesses to the atrocities they do not prevent.
LenweAncalimon 3 years ago 3
"United Nations", huh? More like United schmations.
0bobmar 3 years ago