UN observation team

[IrishGuy 0]

What is the difference between an UN peacekeeping force and a UN observation force?

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]UN peacekeeping force and a UN observation force

Observation forces task is to monitor various measures that have been agreed upon by UN member countries. This goes for disarmament missions, border surveilance to anything you can think. Basically conflict parties have agreed to have external military personel in their country to overwatch defined measures for a limited time.

Peacekeeping forces are there to either keep conflict parties from starting a war or if that has already happened to create a buffer between conflict parties and to ensure that civillians are granted access to basic life-saving measures like food, water or medical treatment. A truce is often very futile. Peacekeeping forces are there to make sure the truce is not "that" futile.

[JdB 151]

UN Observation teams report massacres, war crimes, mass rapes and mutilation and then quitly get on an airplane and go back home to report to the UN.

UN Peacekeeping forces observe massacres, war crimes, genocide, mass rapes and mutilation, then report back to the UN, the UN debates the matter for 6 months. Then when they have agreed to disagree at least 10 times they will order the ill-equiped peacekeeping force to arrest those involved, of course no suspects at that time can be located anymore, the UN makes lame, laughable threats at the countries supporting/harboring these people, the dictator/renegade military leaders have a big laugh and tell the UN to go scr*w themselves with a rubber ducky, after which the UN backs down due to lack of support by it's members, screaming "WE NEED TO ARREST THOSE PEOPLE (/liberate/feed etc)!?!", but no one is willing enough to get off of their lazy asses, and the case is labeled in the UN archive as "Never happened".

Or was that NATO...

Think I broke a record on that sentence

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Think I broke a record on that sentence

Yes, the record on uninformdness.

[JdB 151]

Quote[/b] ]Think I broke a record on that sentence

Yes, the record on uninformdness.

Lol, ever heard of humor, sarcasm, fun, irony?

Probably not

[Donnervogel 0]

well whatever. tha main "problem" is that the UN does not want to become a confict party no matter what it does. and thus the rules of engagement (and equippment) of UN forces are often very limited not allowing them of actually do much if some aggressive group decides to do something against another. mostly UN forces are just there to either observe or to "show force" and hope that will be enough. but eventually the conflict parties know the UN won't really do much against them in short term if they decide to have a frenzy.

those things are not to be confused with foreign troops operating in a country under UN mandate but not as a UN force per se. Like the NATO (SFOR/KFOR/IFOR) in the balkans. It was/is a NATO (or EU --> EUFOR lately IIRC) mission under UN mandate and not a UN mission.

[EiZei 0]

Like the NATO  (SFOR/KFOR/IFOR) in the balkans. It was/is a NATO (or EU --> EUFOR lately IIRC) mission under UN mandate and not a UN mission.

What about all those non-NATO countries there?

[shinRaiden 0]

I was going to say something cynical about Peacekeeping forces sorting out the women and children and Observation forces merely observing, but ironically that's heading the right analogous direction.

My understanding is observation forces are tasked with more of a self-sufficent monitoring role to verify that two or more parties are independently maintaining an externally negotiated truce. They don't actually have the capability or sufficent equipment to act as an intervenor, they're just a third party verifying that the primary parties are playing 'nice'.

Peacekeeping forces on the other hand are tasked as direct intervenors, and respond directly to create stability where truces can be established.

[IrishGuy 0]

From what you guys are telling me both are utterly useless. Am I right?

[JdB 151]

From what you guys are telling me both are utterly useless. Am I right?

Not if used/supported properly.

[IrishGuy 0]

How could that be done so to speak,in your opinion?

[JdB 151]

How could that be done so to speak,in your opinion?

As said, no "all talk and no action when needed", when a crisis involving the UN reaches boiling point, most often you will see parties forming. Those that want to use force, those that are against any kind of force, those that don't care as long as they can profit from it. Usually this leads to a veto in the security council. For an organisation that is made up of very differing members it's strength should lie in unity. Anyone can defy the UN council if that council is divided in interests. From the simplest warlord to the mightiest president.

This sometimes leads to the "unilatteral action" such as the invasion/liberation of Iraq, done by just one group of members of the UN council and allies. Things could be far easier if the other members had agreed on the invasion/liberation of Iraq in terms of politics and economy (*cough*freedom fries*cough*) and had put out an ultimatum that would have resulted in military actions with full support of the UN council such as was the case during the 2nd Gulf War (1991). Cases where everyone agrees are quite rare due to conflicting interests.

Imo the formation of Rapid Deployment Forces directly under NATO command that can be deployed by decision of NATO high command, taking over the tasks of UN peacekeeping/observation missions would solve at least some problems (but would probably create alot of others, mainly political ones, no one likes to lose control of parts of their armed forces).

(Just because the US wasn't directly involved doesn't mean that the Iran-Iraq war doesn't count as the 1st Gulf War )

[Balschoiw 0]

There are/have been a lot of successfull missions like El Salvador, Mozambique and there are ongoing ones that need to be continued to uphold the status quo.

Finished and ongoing UN peacekeeping/enforcing missions

The biggest burden of UN missions today is carried by countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Jordan, Nepal, Ethiopia, Uruguay, Ghana, Nigeria and South Africa.

That doesn´t sound like the who-is-who of todays military but

those countries are more or less trading troops for money as they receive a total of 1000$ per month and soldier.

The EU only participates with about 4.5 percent of the troops and the US at max reach 1 percent of troop contribution to the UN.

[IrishGuy 0]

Quote[/b] ]The biggest burden of UN missions today is carried by countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Jordan, Nepal, Ethiopia, Uruguay, Ghana, Nigeria and South Africa.

Dont forget Ireland dude,lol

[Jinef 2]

Well gee shucks, they gone and done outsource the soldier jobs now as well. Is that good or bad?

Strange, when those Pakistanis got mashed up in Somalia noone really blinked an eyelid. When the Americans got mashed up there was an outroar, the US soldiers were told to run away and a film was made about their heroic actions .... the only depiction the Pakistanis got were of a soldier in a APC saying a really cheesy line .... quite unfair considering they saved the day.

Don't the British still contribute to UN missions quite a lot? Or is that list like manpower instead of actual combat power.

[IrishGuy 0]

Quote[/b] ]the US soldiers were told to run away

To the US soldiers credit they wanted to stay and get the job done. It was Clinton who got cold feet.