Your opinion on UN Peacekeepers/Peacekeeping forces?

Question

Hi-

Only nuanced responses, please. I am looking for thoughtful, learned opinion.

What is your opinion on UN peacekeepers/forces? When should they deployed? What is your normative opinion of the system?

Answer 1

UN peacekeepers have got to have one of the hardest jobs in the world. Not only can they really fight back hard against combatants, but they take all the grief of not being able to accomplish anything. At least they are putting forth effort and they do save lives, sometimes they even bail out the United States. In 1994 in Somalia, the U.S. made an attack on the resident warlord of Mogadishu Mohammed Aidid and it ended up failing quickly. After many of their men were wounded or killed, the UN stepped in to provide support and get them out of there.

When should they be deployed? Who knows. It is up to the will of the General Assembly and the Security Council. Personally, its very subjective. Yes, they should intervene to stop an act of humanitarian crisis. How do we define a humanitarian crisis? I have no idea, but something like Darfur sounds good enough, or Somalia, or Rwanda, or Bosnia, or Myanmar. We want to help in these situations, but we must keep in mind that this allows for the norm of intervention to occur anytime that something goes wrong somewhere. Some could argue that the lacking U.S. response to Katrina could be seen as a humanitarian crisis.

Answer 2

They are normally deployed by the Security Council under the terms laid out in Chapter Six of the UN Charter. And that requires the agreement by the belligerents, in advance of deploying the peacekeeping mission.
Overall I think they do a good job of being an "armed wedge" in between warring forces that allows diplomatic activities to begin to resolve the situation. But, given recent attacks by indigenous belligerents on the peacekeepers, I think it's time for a signficant change in the language of the Security Council resolutions that authorize creation of these peacekeeping missions. That is language which warns all of the belligerents that any attack on any of the peacekeeping force deployed under Chapter Six of the UN Charter will automatically convert that force into a peace enforcement mission as defined in Chapter Seven of the UN Charter and the mission commander will have the power to use all necessary means to restore the status quo.

Answer 3

The idea and concept are excellent and it is a shame that the failures have led to a condemnation of the UN in general and the concept in particular. If you take a look at the history of peacekeeping since its inception you will realise good work has been done under very difficult circumstances. Peacekeeping is not a solution in itself to any conflict. That is a political and diplomatic function & responsibility and if that process fails then peacekeeping caanot achieve its objectives either , because it is one of a means to an end, not an end in itself.
That being said , some peacekeeping operations have been a dismal failure because of abysmal planning but especially because of under-funding and under- resourcing and the failure of member countries to live up to their committments of support. Fundamentally, the UN is only as effective as member countries allow it to be and the present crisis in Darfur is an excellent example of this.

Answer 4

The perception is that when they send "troops" to a conflict, it is really only for window dressing. About 12 guys show up in really cool looking uniforms, in white vehicles with U.N. stenciled on the side, and then . . . they stand around looking at passports and talking to shop keepers. I mean, what have they done? It should be UN peacekeepers between North and South Korea, not US soldiers. It should be UN peacekepers, by the thousands, between Israel and the Palestinian territories. It should be UN peacekeepers between the Northern Kurds and the Turks. But no, they are shining their boots and putting wax on their white Humvees. It should be UN peacekeepers, again by the thousands, in the Afican hot spots. Think about it, what are the members of the UN getting from their 'peacekeeping' investment? Nothing as far as I can tell. Do they really do anything besides show up for photos, with the pictures showing up in the lobby of the UN as if the peacekeepers actually did something? The 8 year olds have a gang in my neighborhood and they use water balloons and squirt guns and I think they would be too much for the UN "soldiers" to handle.

Answer 5

Any time you have a discussion on Beliefs (capital B), if you even use the word "wrong" about someone else's Belief, you are forcing the issue. A belief can be neither right nor wrong. It is a conviction of truth, a noun, a thing. How can a THING be right or wrong?

Answer 6

oxymoron. They are peacekeepers, but they have weapons they aren't supposed to use. Peacemakers don't have weapons! Let's redo all things related international relations;
UN resolutions, bills, trade agreements, embargoes, etc, to get in tune with the 21 century.

Answer 7

i agree with the first answer. why do we even need the UN? they haven't been able to solve anything. just another part leading toward a one world government.

Answer 8

They should never be deployed, because they are useless. They are not allowed to take military action when confronted, their standing order is to withdraw from the contested area. If there is too much "hostility", they are withdrawn from the country.THAT makes them useless.

Answer 9

The UN is worthless, they are corrupt elitist group that takes advantage of the US. The UN does what it can to undermine the US even though we are their largest contributors.

Answer 10

who willcontrol techniques under construction and the command