The blue helmets (UN soldiers),what do you think about them?

[karamazovmm]

What do you think about the blue helmets?

Are they worthy it?

The missions are doable?

They lack of action?

Is the mandate the problem?

[bushbush]

most of time the problems aren't their fault. It usually boils down to:
1. the mission they were given was not achievable with their limited resource anyways.
2. the UN big powers are not united and a few of them were obstructing
3. the UN big powers are not interested or politically willing to act.

it's easy to blame the UN but keep in mind the security council is made of 15 countries and UN troops were contributions, not permanent army. If one or more big powers refuse to act, the mission usually will have problem. This is especially true for missions that are controversial, like intervening in civil wars or humanitarian crisis.

[Captain Jin]

It's also important than when these little thing pop up requiring UN organizations to come in and 'help', it's often in the interest of those assigned to perpetuate the and make no attempt to circumvent beauracracy. Usually when an official gets a posting like that they make more money, so they aren't generally in any rush to see things get solved. Not to mention the UN's overall lack of interest in actually putting any real weight behind it's military actions, or ever actually putting it's foot down on an issue. Who cares if the UN condemns you anymore? Nobody, it's just an empty and idle threat from a crusty, bloated organization that is largely impotent. It's not like the Korean war days, which actually showed that the UN could be an organization that could make a difference.

[bushbush]

It's also important than when these little thing pop up requiring UN organizations to come in and 'help', it's often in the interest of those assigned to perpetuate the and make no attempt to circumvent beauracracy. Usually when an official gets a posting like that they make more money, so they aren't generally in any rush to see things get solved. Not to mention the UN's overall lack of interest in actually putting any real weight behind it's military actions, or ever actually putting it's foot down on an issue. Who cares if the UN condemns you anymore? Nobody, it's just an empty and idle threat from a crusty, bloated organization that is largely impotent. It's not like the Korean war days, which actually showed that the UN could be an organization that could make a difference.

it's not like the great powers like the US is interested in doing anything. It is easy to make fun of the UN but who pulls the triggers? certainly not the bureaucrats there.

[Captain Jin]

it's not like the great powers like the US is interested in doing anything. It is easy to make fun of the UN but who pulls the triggers? certainly not the bureaucrats there.

The US doesn't involve itself with the UN primarily because of it's ineptitude. I can't think of a single 'successful' UN operation in the last twenty five years. You can go look at them, they are concerned to be successful by the UN itself, but in fact nothing is ever solved. The point of the US is sort of moot one, since we have gotten involved in the past. Somalia, for instance, was a UN operation-- one that failed miserably after the US pulled it's weight out. You'd be quite surprised at how much the officials working for the UN make and why it's in their interest to prolong the sort of crisis that cause them to do their job.

[bushbush]

The US doesn't involve itself with the UN primarily because of it's ineptitude.

actually in both rwanda and darfur (partially), UN's failure can be traced back to US and other powers' lack of will to get. If they dont want to do it, they will just try to pass through a water-downed resolution without providing any substance (because they dont want to) and blame the UN at the end.

it is easy to do this and instead of really focusing on how to solve the problem. I am not blaming US in particular. They are doing it in their self interest and they are tied down a lot of times due to various constraints. But blaming the UN while the triggers were pulled by great powers is not fair.

[eizo]

The US doesn't involve itself with the UN primarily because of it's ineptitude. I can't think of a single 'successful' UN operation in the last twenty five years. You can go look at them, they are concerned to be successful by the UN itself, but in fact nothing is ever solved. The point of the US is sort of moot one, since we have gotten involved in the past. Somalia, for instance, was a UN operation-- one that failed miserably after the US pulled it's weight out. You'd be quite surprised at how much the officials working for the UN make and why it's in their interest to prolong the sort of crisis that cause them to do their job.

I can only say that this could not be more on the spot, from my exp with them...
They are useless...

[karamazovmm]

In the other UN thread, it has been many times pointed out that the fault lies in its members not in the UN body itself. I have to agree to this whole heartedly.

But since we are citizens of those afore mentioned members, why we don't give a damn?

Does anyone knows the death tolls of the air raids done by the government in Sudan? Does anyone knows that those air strikes were claimed to be done by rebels? Does anyone knows that China was downplaying the crisis in every possible way? This is one crisis, does anyone knows the situation on Myanmar after the hurricanes in the last year? And what about the refugee camps on the other countries borders? How are the guerrilla in Indonesia, and the claims of abuse by both parties?

You see, we like to argue, but we don't like to move, have you moved?

[bushbush]

But since we are citizens of those afore mentioned members, why we don't give a damn?

depends if there are enough of concerned citizens who think spending billions and sending tens of thousands of boys to possibly die in world's poorest and most dangerous holes is worth it. Usually people are passionate about it but no one wants to pay or die for the cause. It is hard to expect countries, especially modern self-centered nations, to give a damn in most cases.

[karamazovmm]

depends if there are enough of concerned citizens who think spending billions and sending tens of thousands of boys to possibly die in world's poorest and most dangerous holes is worth it. Usually people are passionate about it but no one wants to pay or die for the cause. It is hard to expect countries, especially modern self-centered nations, to give a damn in most cases.

Yes that's a common excuse that I hear too often, although when the interest rate is there, the matter changes. I see a lack of political skill.

The point being, that a country like Sierra Leone, was in the middle of war and still was the one of the top producers of diamonds in the world, baffles me.

You apparently don't know the main cause of non involvement of the China in the issue of Sudan, the petrol that is produced in that country is going 80% to China.

You see that UN and their members are not a police task force that should be in all armed disputes that rises, but at the same, it became a paradox, since you do expect the interference of its member states in armed conflicts through out the world, in an armed way.

@ Jin, the point of the security council was:

To establish a body that could enforce decisions which the GA is not capable of.
To ascertain the balance of power of the world in the 1944 time
To discern that UN is very different from the NL, and as such it would convey as a more aristocratic approach, getting and speeding response times.

Now if the main contingent is gone, and one of the others main contributers just lost 1/3 of its troops, what do you expect? This is the case of Ruanda.

[bushbush]

You apparently don't know the main cause of non involvement of the China in the issue of Sudan, the petrol that is produced in that country is going 80% to China.

in china's case the world actually made a difference through activism so i actually agree with you people can do something to change this on their own. At first china was hardcore threatening to veto anything that meant sending a large force to darfur (instead of the 8000 small african union force with no equipment or resource to do anything). But with 2008 olympic coming in, the global protests especially during the torch relays and the world media bashing china on this changed the whole situation. China actually was forced to pressure Sudan to accept a larger (i believe 22,000) force there which has been gradually deployed and the situation has significantly improved.

[karamazovmm]

The situation didn't improve, the massacres are still happening, there was one at the beginning of this year.

You see the point is one of control in the case.

There is a minority of the country that is animist and protected by the few catholic missionaries and believers. And the ''rest'' being the islamic.

The problem is that aside islamism these days not so much forgiving to others beliefs, they are in the south of the country.

The main petrol fields, are in the south of the country.

All adding up, cleanse the country, make it pure. Kill everyone.

But violations of human rights aside, there are some tribes there that practices the female genital mutilation,, what do we do with them?

[EireEmerald]

I think they have nice uniforms.

[Justinian]

You mean the soldiers of the Useless Nations?

[Exarch]

What do you think about the blue helmets?

Are they worthy it?

The missions are doable?

They lack of action?

Is the mandate the problem?

the blue helmets are a good idea; good enforcers of peace
we jsut need to stop the rapists among them is all

[DisgruntledGoat]

Bureaucracy is the death of the UN. In concept they are great, but rules of engagement have basically neutered them in every conflict. Yes ROE's are important and should exist but if the UN is going to be effective they can no longer operate under "Peace Keeping" but "Peace Enforcing" practices. The other big issue is the permanent members of the security council, their positions and the fact that a veto by anyone one member voids any proposals by the majority of others. Because of this it means that the UN is in fact run by two countries and two countries alone (US & Russia).

[karamazovmm]

And what about the other permanent members of the SC? They can veto

[DisgruntledGoat]

And what about the other permanent members of the SC? They can veto

The veto in general is the real problem but my point is that the security council is diametrically opposed and run by two main powers. The US block and the Russian block. Pretty simple.

[Sphere]

Actually the majority of Blue-helmet missions are successful at keeping the peace. Look at Cyprus, Syria-Isreal, Kosovo etc. There have been notable failures, but generally speaking they are the exception, but make for good news.

I would never trust UN forces to actually carry out wars, even to prevent humanitarian crisis'. That should fall to NATO which is much more effective at such things.

[karamazovmm]

Yes NATO is a ''military force'', UN is a effort to be a place for discussions, and some sort of action, the police response that people wait from UN is not, strangely enough, something that it was designed for.