Peacekeeping: More than Symbolic Duty?

[Hurkyl]

Just what do they actually do? I only remember hearing about peacekeeping troops evacuating when the peace gets broken. (Rwanda, Côte d'Ivoire) In practice, are they anything more than symbolic?

 

[Bystander]

Depends on what gets written into the particular resolutions they're enforcing --- they usually get permission to defend themselves --- Korea, they got the whole nine yards --- Rwanda, they got to watch the massacres.

 

[Skyhunter]

Depends on what gets written into the particular resolutions they're enforcing --- they usually get permission to defend themselves --- Korea, they got the whole nine yards --- Rwanda, they got to watch the massacres.

Exactly. without robust rules of engagement, they are nothing more than armed spectators.

 

[J77]

Don't they go into tidy up war zones after the Americans have got bored...

 

[deckart]

Political rent-a-cops.

 

[pcorbett]

Don't they go into tidy up war zones after the Americans have got bored...

Because they're not very good at it?

 

[mathwonk]

I think peacekeepers are important symbols of wider international opinion against the war in progress. they show support from more tha one or two rogue armies for a peaceful solution. They are sacrificial lambs almost since they have mostly moral authority and litl military support.

So if they are ignored they have to get ut or be masscred. But we need more of them I think in some places.

 

[russ_watters]

I think peacekeepers are important symbols of wider international opinion against the war in progress. they show support from more tha one or two rogue armies for a peaceful solution. They are sacrificial lambs almost since they have mostly moral authority and litl military support.

So if they are ignored they have to get ut or be masscred. But we need more of them I think in some places.

In general, though, these situations require soldiers, not symbols. For a soldier, impotent "peacekeeping" is the worst possible duty because it carries with it a substantial risk of death with no real ability to actually do any good.

The UN needs to step up to the plate for real.

Anyone see Hotel Rwanda? I don't know how much creative license was taken with Nick Nolte's character, but his character showed extreme (to the point of risking his job and life) frustration with his impotence in the face of an archetypal situation for the UN's existence.

 

[Cyrus]

That was a great movie.

 

[mathwonk]

i was not answering a question of what they should be but of what they are.

 

[Skyhunter]

The UN needs to step up to the plate for real.

Bush should tell John Bolton to get right on that.

I agree. Unfortunately I don't see that happening. I don't see any good coming out of this.

This is what I see.

Israel is going to carry out it's mission, whatever that is, and the US is going to back them. There is no other nation strong enough, or willing to risk US displeasure. At least that seems to be the attitude of the administration.

This could spill over into Syria. Israel could easily handle them both. Especially since they are getting close, I think to achieving their objective in Lebanon. With an international peacekeeping force in Southern Lebanon, and US diplomatic support, they could easily turn to Syria.

The international (UN) pressure was just elevated slightly on Iran. In a few months Israel could be in Syria and the US could be in an extremely belligerent posture with Iran.

Could make for an interesting mid term election cycle.

I sure hope I am just being paranoid.

I don't hold out much hope though. The people that brought us Iraq, (minus Colin Powell) are now manipulating events in Lebanon.

 

[pcorbett]

Just what do they actually do? I only remember hearing about peacekeeping troops evacuating when the peace gets broken. (Rwanda, Côte d'Ivoire) In practice, are they anything more than symbolic?

Here's a good place to start [1]. Read it, get an idea of the concepts behind OOTW/SASO/whatever they're calling it this year, and then try using this [1].

 

[devil-fire]

U.N. peace keepers are a tool of the U.N. and because of this, are usualy vary limited in what use of force they are permited to use. for example in rwanda they were not authorized to defend rwandians with force and because of the quick escilation of violence were evacuated (the characters seen in hotel rwanda were based on people who refused to leave, contrary to their orders). if, however, the UN security council concluded a U.N. peacekeeping mission in rwanda should include protection of civilian lives by use of force, then the peacekeepers would take on the roll of something more like a conventional military.

however, turning U.N.peace keepers into an army can run into a lot of resistance by members of the security council. for example if the UN decided that the observation post in lebenon being bombed was unacceptable and wanted to shoot down israeli planes and basicly be at a defacto state of war with israel, if the USA vetoed that decision (they would, as well as many other nations) then nothing would come of it

basicly peacekeepers can do anything everyone agrees on. that hardly ever happens so UN peace keepers hardly ever do anything

 

[pcorbett]

U.N. peace keepers are a tool of the U.N.

That's hilarious. Tell me. When was the last time the UN Secretariat ever had command authority over a UN flagged combined force in the field? Hint: the answer is never.

basicly peacekeepers can do anything everyone agrees on. that hardly ever happens so UN peace keepers hardly ever do anything

Except in Korea, Cambodia, Kuwait, Yugoslavia, and East Timor.

 

[Hurkyl]

When was the last time the UN Secretariat ever had command authority over a UN flagged combined force in the field?

Is a "UN flagged combined force" a group of UN peacekeepers?

Kuwait, Yugoslavia

These two I remember, more or less. I don't remember either being called a "peacekeeping mission". Are you saying that these, and the other three, were actually peacekeepers?

 

[BobG]

Is a "UN flagged combined force" a group of UN peacekeepers?

Kuwait, Yugoslavia

These two I remember, more or less. I don't remember either being called a "peacekeeping mission". Are you saying that these, and the other three, were actually peacekeepers?

The UN stepped in after the fighting was over in both operations. NATO did the actual fighting in Kosovo, and a military coalition separate from the UN was formed by the first Bush to liberate Kuwait.

This link shows the UN's current and past peacekeeping operations: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/index.asp

A UN 'fighting force' in the Korean War was an anomaly. The UN recognized the Taiwanese government as the official Chinese government instead of the PRC. The Soviets boycotted the UN in protest, which meant they weren't around to veto a UN force whose purpose was to fight the NKorean forces that the Soviet Union supported.