United Nations Poll

[Kagemusha]

Reacently there have been lots of talk about the role of United Nations.Do you think UN is still matters in global politics or do you find it worthless?

[Sjakihata]

Of course it matters - it is, after all, all the nations united.

[Kagemusha]

I also think its very usefull and should be used more then novadays. :bow:

[King Henry V]

It has shown itself to be politically impotent during the Iraq debate.

[UglyandHasty]

It is usefull, and its role should be increased overall. If as soon a conflict begin, the Blue Helmet showed up to kick ass, maybe we could begin to talk about global peace.

[Red Harvest]

It is usefull, and its role should be increased overall. If as soon a conflict begin, the Blue Helmet showed up to kick ass, maybe we could begin to talk about global peace.

The problem is the Blue Helmet doesn't have the authority/ability to kick butts. Without allied forces to apply the stick, the Blue Helmets have a tendency to stand by while things happen in front of them. Peacekeeping doesn't really work unless 1. The peacekeeper has the ability to kick any aggressing violator's tail the same day they cause trouble or 2. The warring factions are so sick of it that they will assist the peacekeeper in acting as arbiter.

This extends back to the problems with the concept of careful, measured response in military conflict. Sounds great on paper and very civilized. In practice it makes one predictable and therefore vulnerable and ineffective. Deterrence comes from the fear of disproportinate response.


Of course it matters - it is, after all, all the nations united.

The United Nations is not the "Nations United," it really is just a council of nations and factions of nations trying to work out compromises. Whenever a conflict arises, it is necessarily going to take time for them to come to an agreement, if one is even reachable at all. There is rarely anything approaching unanimity.

The chances of the Blue Helmets moving out when a conflict begins is therefore not realistic, even if the world was largely in agreement that action is needed--rarely the case.

[King of Atlantis]

It is usefull, but barely. The only good thing about it is at least the nations are "united", other than that it is like a dog with a hundred heads and no teath.

[Kagemusha]

The problem is the Blue Helmet doesn't have the authority/ability to kick butts. Without allied forces to apply the stick, the Blue Helmets have a tendency to stand by while things happen in front of them. Peacekeeping doesn't really work unless 1. The peacekeeper has the ability to kick any aggressing violator's tail the same day they cause trouble or 2. The warring factions are so sick of it that they will assist the peacekeeper in acting as arbiter.

I think the EUs Rapid deployment forces will chance that tendency.They start recruiting next year.When they are ready.The deployment speed to any crisis area should be 5-15 days.What do you guys think about that?

[UglyandHasty]

Well that trend of being a force of non-intervention(the blue helmet) should end. They should be given power to kick ass ! That would have save thousands of lifes in Rwanda for example.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I think the EUs Rapid deployment forces will chance that tendency.They start recruiting next year.When they are ready.The deployment speed to any crisis area should be 5-15 days.What do you guys think about that?
I doubt it will ever be deployed.

[Kagemusha]

Yes time will tell if they ever see any crisis.But the troops are under construction as we speak.The Finish Special Operations Battallion for those troops is under training right now. :bow:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Yes: It helps smaller countries last, and provides humanitarian aid and peacekeeping

No: It has little influence with the major powers. It couldn't stop the US invading Iraq.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

No: It has little influence with the major powers. It couldn't stop the US invading Iraq.

More accurately, it couldn't stop Saddam from disobeying UN orders.

[Steppe Merc]

I think that the UN is a good idea, but it needs to be either seriously reorgnaized, or replaced by a similar entity.

[Redleg]

I think the EUs Rapid deployment forces will chance that tendency.They start recruiting next year.When they are ready.The deployment speed to any crisis area should be 5-15 days.What do you guys think about that?

I don't think so. There will be in-fighting within the EU about how the force will be used. There was a similiar force designed during the 1980's around a NATO rapid-reaction force (If my memory serves me correctly) that could never get beyond the concept and training phase because of the politics of the NATO members.

And if its 5-15 days its behind what the United States is already capable of with the Airborne and light Brigades of the Army and MEF of the Marines.

ITs a good idea for Europe but I doubt if the EU force will ever be deployed outside of a purely European mission, and will never be a force to replace the "Blue Helments" of the United Nations Peacekeeping missions.

Remember the "Blue Helments" come from member nations that want to support the United Nations Peacekeeping missions and is not a standing force with a standing chain of command. Which is its primary problem in responding to problems.

[Redleg]

Yes: It helps smaller countries last, and provides humanitarian aid and peacekeeping

No: It has little influence with the major powers. It couldn't stop the US invading Iraq.

You need to change you no to include more then major powers - the United Nations has absolutely no influence on nations that do not want to comply with the resolutions of the UN - because the United Nations has no ability, no capablity, and no authority to force a nation to comply with its directives - unless other nations which to provide the forces necessary.

[Kagemusha]

I don't think so. There will be in-fighting within the EU about how the force will be used. There was a similiar force designed during the 1980's around a NATO rapid-reaction force (If my memory serves me correctly) that could never get beyond the concept and training phase because of the politics of the NATO members.

And if its 5-15 days its behind what the United States is already capable of with the Airborne and light Brigades of the Army and MEF of the Marines.

ITs a good idea for Europe but I doubt if the EU force will ever be deployed outside of a purely European mission, and will never be a force to replace the "Blue Helments" of the United Nations Peacekeeping missions.

Remember the "Blue Helments" come from member nations that want to support the United Nations Peacekeeping missions and is not a standing force with a standing chain of command. Which is its primary problem in responding to problems.

The concept of the troops when it was decided was that these European troops would be deployd.When the situation would be that the US for some reason wouldnt or couldnt get involved in that particular crisis.The main area for use of these troops would be ofcourse near EU.Im sure that you as an military person know that there are also Marines and Paratroopers and long range transporting capacity in European Arsenals asswell. ~;)
And about EU peacekeeping.There is purely EU peacekeeping operation on UN mandat going on at Sierra Leone as we speak.

[PanzerJaeger]

Its just about as important as the League was..

[Redleg]

The concept of the troops when it was decided was that these European troops would be deployd.

Of course it was in concept - just like the NATO force was decided in concept. Reality will paint a different picture.


When the situation would be that the US for some reason wouldnt or couldnt get involved in that particular crisis.The main area for use of these troops would be ofcourse near EU.

One of the reasons the NATO multinational force failed was because of something very similiar to this.



Im sure that you as an military person know that there are also Marines and Paratroopers and long range transporting capacity in European Arsenals asswell. ~;)

Sure I do - but we are not talking about the national militaries of individual nations - but the EU rapid reactionary force. 5-15 days is slow for such a force. The ones - Airborne Units of many nations can be in country deployed and conducting combat operations in 24 hours or less, with follow on forces arriving within 3 days.

The MEF's are positioned for immediate support of Airborne Units.



And about EU peacekeeping.There is purely EU peacekeeping operation on UN mandat going on at Sierra Leone as we speak.

I know - and it proves my point of Remember the "Blue Helments" come from member nations that want to support the United Nations Peacekeeping missions and is not a standing force with a standing chain of command. Which is its primary problem in responding to problems.

[sharrukin]

The UN is all talk, and that is exactly what it should be, because talking can sometimes avoid fighting. It acts as a international opinion poll, and that is useful as well. Given that democracies that respect human rights are a minority in the world, do we really want the UN to have significant power, that could be turned to any purpose?

[Beirut]

Damn straight it's still useful.

They've got the best hookers there! ~:eek:

[Kagemusha]

Sure I do - but we are not talking about the national militaries of individual nations - but the EU rapid reactionary force. 5-15 days is slow for such a force. The ones - Airborne Units of many nations can be in country deployed and conducting combat operations in 24 hours or less, with follow on forces arriving within 3 days.
The MEF's are positioned for immediate support of Airborne Units.
I know - and it proves my point of Remember the "Blue Helments" come from member nations that want to support the United Nations Peacekeeping missions and is not a standing force with a standing chain of command. Which is its primary problem in responding to problems.

As the nature of EU compared to US is that these troops are part of their standing national armys,only under Operational use they are under EU military HQ which have existed for about 3 years now.About the 5-15 days it means a time where one of the thirteen 1500 men taskforce can be deployd.Its not very pompous,but dont you think its pretty much better then nothing. ~:)

[JAG]

Clearly a good idea and still the way forward for global discussions and action.

However I fear the haters have / will have a field day in this thread.

*goes off*

[Don Corleone]

The problem with the UN is that it's not representative, and therefore has no mandate of the governed. If you want a world government, form one. This aristocracy of appointed beauracrats, with no teeth mind you, has become rather "all bark, no bite".

[Red Harvest]

Don's point is valid. The breakdown in the UN is often that you have a bunch of one party dictatorships exerting too much control. Their main interest is preserving their party/family power, NOT their nation. While the multi-party, democratic/representative govts. are far from perfect, at least their govts. come much closer to representing their nation's interests in the UN.

It is the military alliances that have gotten things done, not the UN. The UN didn't win the Cold War, NATO did (and other alliances.) The UN didn't solve the various Balkan Crises, NATO muscle did. I could point to quite a few more. Perhaps it will change, but the Blue Helmets are never going to be able to go anyplace without near unanimous support. Look at how slow they have been to react to Dharfur.

[Auctoritas]

It seems unlikely to me that the UN will be an effective organization when it comes to applying military force any time soon. To be an effective military force, even in peacekeeping operations, there has to be a commitment to stay engaged.

This means staying engaged even when there are casualties, when civilians are hurt, and when the mission seems to be going south. The U.N. has not demonstrated that level of commitment since Korea and nothing that it has done recently seems to indicate a change in attitude. :book:

[Papewaio]

Look how long East Timor has taken so far. And that is with a lot of local support.

[Auctoritas]

Look how long East Timor has taken so far. And that is with a lot of local support.

East Timor was a goat rope from the outset. Inconsistent delivery of foreign aid and the rampant corruption of the local government hampered relief and security efforts from day one. That's another one that didn't go well, but easily could have gone a lot worse.

[bmolsson]

UN needs to be reformed, not bashed.....

[Franconicus]

There is no other option!

[Red Harvest]

Guess I should add, I'm not anti-UN per se. There are plenty of good things the UN is doing (and a few of those are things that the administration of my current govt opposes), but it can't deal with strongmen, and the control exerted by armpit totalitarian regimes is ludicrous.

The U.N. really did fail us all on Iraq. We, the US, wanted out, but only after resolving the problem. Leaving behind a wounded enemy is not generally a good idea...especially given Saddam's history. So we were stuck, we had this jerkwad shooting at our forces, no end in sight. France, Germany, and Russia had been undercutting us for some time and there were moves to end UN support of the sanctions. The UN could have actually put Dubya in a jam, by uniting with a stern resolution to force Saddam back into compliance. They didn't, instead leading Saddam to overplay his hand, and this in effect played right into Dubya's hand. Long term, I don't think the US had a choice, it was simply a matter of when, and under what pretense. Every time Saddam fired on our forces it was an act of war, screw WMD, screw UN resolutions that weren't being fully enforced. (Of course, the root problem was that Dubya Sr. was unwilling to support the insurgency in Iraq at the end of the Gulf War for fear of angering neighbors and because of concerns about strengthening Iran. It was one of those opportunities that only arises once.)