Quo vadis UN?

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

In the past, the United Nations have been heavily criticised for the mandates given to peacekeepers. In particular, people bemoaned their "lack of teeth", their inability or unwillingness to help people in the region they were sent to - many times this was blamed on either corrupt leadership or useless mandate. Yugoslavia being one of the more extreme examples.

So what could the UN do? In many debates it was argued that they should be given a full combat mandate, that they ought to be able to do what Nato did in Yugoslavia and Serbia. If one side disrupts the peace, hit them hard so they may not strike again.

It seems as if they listened, because this approach was chosen this weekend by the French peacekeepers in Ivory Coast. What happened, was this:

After a year of uneasy peace, government forces flew air raids against Rebel positions. Unfortunately, they also hit the French forces, killing 9 and wounding 20. Following the UN mandate (and getting full UN backing), the French retaliated by destroying the Ivorian air force - 2 Su-25 ground attack planes, at least 3 Mi-28 attack helicopters and at least 1 Mi-8 transport helicopter.

What happened then was that the chief of the armed forces called this an attack by the French on the Ivory Coast, he spouted off some rubbish about France trying to reclaim its former colony again (France contributes 40% to the Ivorian peacekeeper force) and the people responded.

Several Ivorian cities saw huge mobs of Ivorians rioting, foreigners (esp. French citizens) being hounded out of their houses, their propterties looted, and a general anti-French frenzy slowly starts to grip the country.

This is one of the links, follow the links on the right for more info on the situation:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3991241.stm

So, coming back to the source of the question, what should the UN do in further peacekeeping missions? Should they stick to this heavy handed approach, despite the chaos it has created? Should they return to their old ways? What other methods could they employ to make peacekeeping successful?

One note: this is a topic about the future directon of UN peacekeeping - Ivory Coast is only one example I used, other examples are welcome.

[turms 0]

Couple of points that came to my mind.. 1 They werent UN troops that were hit, they were french troops. UN okd the use of force, but it isnt a UN operation.

2. UN is not a military organisation, and it shouldnt be.

[Pathy 0]

Still, the league of nations collapsed because it lacked teeth. Countries could just flout thier sanctions and not face any penalties. The UN is meant to be tougher. And so it should be.

[joltan 0]

I think the french acted just right. You can't keep the peace if the side breaking the agreements doesn't get the heat, too. Peacekeeping - but with sharp teeth. Also it must be clear that whoever attacks the peacekeepers isn't going to enjoy the results.

[Akira 0]

In my opinion peacekeeping can not just be keeping two sides apart, as that never addresses the underlying conflict in any way. You can't keep troops in a troubled spot, keeping the sides separated forever.

Some form of military power, threat of greater force is necessary, as generally, that is the only thing that is understood in this world. Sanctions and isolation from the world community obviously does not work. Couple that with intense diplomatic talks, don't let the issues or conflict be forgotten.

So in my opinion, the UN does need more teeth, more strength to counter the arguments that the UN is just a paper tiger.

[denoir 0]

One has to understand that the UN is a huge bureaucracy. It takes a long time to make a decision and it has to go through a number of independent steps.

This is done on purpose - decisions about going to war should not be taken lightly. The bureaucracy makes sure that it doesn't go to fast - that people really think before acting.

This however sucks badly in a combat context. During a good part of the war in Bosnia, the UN was directly in charge of the operation and the results were terrible. Authorization to use force was almost always delayed or stopped at some instance. Later in the war however, they came to terms with this and delegated the military mission to NATO. That was quite an improvement.

And that's the model they're running these days. Once the UN takes a political decision, they delegate the military operation to a military organization or country. For instance in Kosovo, NATO was running the show. In Congo, the EU is in charge - and on the Ivory Coast, France is.

They have a UN mandate for a military intervention, but the military is not under UN command.

[Cpt. FrostBite 0]

@ex-ronin,

This is a good question. I've asked myself about this point a lot of times and I've also spoken about it with people in the military.

Let me start with saying that the old way was a complete disaster and it really couldn't get any worse. I live in the Netherlands and know a few people that have been on UN-duty in Bosnia during the Balkan-wars. As you might know, that Dutch have a very sad and frustrating military history here. Because they were too lightly armed and because the mandate prevented them from doing anything, the Dutch forces were repeatedly attacked. The sad result was that Srebrenica was overrun and that the Dutch forces had to watch as 7000 men (civilians) were killed (executed).

The sad truth is that is someone really want to fight, he won't be stopped by UN forces. Some won't hesitate to kill UN-soldiers in the process.

So this had to change. The hard way which can now be seen in the Ivory-coast conflict is a good improvement. Although the goverment is now very angry at the UN and the people are targeting french civilians, at least the message sent by the UN is a very strong one; if you point a finger at us, we will chop it off.

The strong approach is a risky one, bu only the first few days are dangerous. After those first few days the anger is gone and the (targeted) forces will realize that they can't just attack the UN forces or they will be destroyed. The UN forces are backed-up by half the world and if it comes to fighting the military might of the UN-nation cannot be stopped.

Through the soldiers eye;

It must be a good feeling to know that you can use force. You don't have to watch anymore while terrible things happen. When your mate get's killed, at least the enemy will pay for it. This sounds stupid, but is actually very important.

[Grizzlie 0]

I think that first UN has to rebuild itself, starting from removing "veto" right. Maybe beaurokracy is good, but in alot of cases it is only wasting time. As far as i remember it took few months to make resolution about Darfour, and it was ONLY about POSSIBILITY of restictions.

Other problem is when UN decide to use force, thay r mixed forces from many countries without cooperating experience. Without heavily training those forces cannot make their job.

[CounterForce 0]

In my opinion, there are a couple of problems in the UN:

1:

There are too many people involved in decisions. Therefore it takes too long to make decisions. Because of so many countries being part of the UN there are a lot of people who have different opinions. Sometimes it takes several days until all member states have spoken about how they want the others to decide.

And it will take even longer until most agree on a specific decision. In the most cases none of the member states gets exactly what they wanted. To make them all agree on a decision you will have to dilute the claims of all member states.

What is decided now is a compromise and not a strong position.

2:

The UN has no power.

It can decide something, but what will happen, if a country or a coalition of contries don't care about what the UN says?

There might be a resolution, but what if noone cares about this either?

The economic consequences are not too bad. You will always find somebody to deal with, regardless what the UN says. Maybe it will be harder, but not impossible.

And what if you are needed by the UN?

You can do whatever you want. The best example in the past years is the war in Iraq. The US/UK coalition was able to invade Iraq and nothing happened. There were a lot of anrgy people in the UN, but nothing else.

And if the UN manages to give a mandate, the "UN Forces" won't be too dangerous because they won't get a full combat mandate, but they will be some kind of peacekeapers who don't really care about what is going on, and if they care, it is days too late because decisions take a lot of time.

There are other problems like bureaucracy which are really bad too.

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]Once the UN takes a political decision, they delegate the military operation to a military organization or country. For instance in Kosovo, NATO was running the show. In Congo, the EU is in charge - and on the Ivory Coast, France is.

What about the Middle east if they plan on sending Peacekeepers maybe one day here to you know either Iraq or israel/Palestine whos military command would it be in? Dont tell me its the US or Israel

[CounterForce 0]

Quote[/b] ]Once the UN takes a political decision, they delegate the military operation to a military organization or country. For instance in Kosovo, NATO was running the show. In Congo, the EU is in charge - and on the Ivory Coast, France is.

What about the Middle east if they plan on sending Peacekeepers maybe one day here to you know either Iraq or israel/Palestine whos military command would it be in? Dont tell me its the US or Israel

I don't think the UN will even decide to sent "peacekeepers" to the middle East because it would not be in the interest of many contries of the UN.

[python3 0]

Quote[/b] ]Once the UN takes a political decision, they delegate the military operation to a military organization or country. For instance in Kosovo, NATO was running the show. In Congo, the EU is in charge - and on the Ivory Coast, France is.

What about the Middle east if they plan on sending Peacekeepers maybe one day here to you know either Iraq or israel/Palestine whos military command would it be in? Dont tell me its the US or Israel  

I don't think the UN will even decide to sent "peacekeepers" to the middle East because it would not be in the interest of many contries of the UN.

i dont even think many of the middle easterners would welcome them either, foreign forces in the middle east are not appreciated by the people.

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]Once the UN takes a political decision, they delegate the military operation to a military organization or country. For instance in Kosovo, NATO was running the show. In Congo, the EU is in charge - and on the Ivory Coast, France is.

What about the Middle east if they plan on sending Peacekeepers maybe one day here to you know either Iraq or israel/Palestine whos military command would it be in? Dont tell me its the US or Israel

I don't think the UN will even decide to sent "peacekeepers" to the middle East because it would not be in the interest of many contries of the UN.

UN has allready sent, for example Libanon 1978-

EDIT: corrected the year, adding this link to the current UN operations

[python3 0]

yes in lebanon, and also in egypt on the border with israel. they are just border forces. i think both groups number less than a thousand. no major widespread force like we see in africa etc.