Peace Keeping versus Peace Enforcement

This has been a long running debate in the years since the Cold War ended. From Somalia to Rwanda to Bosnia to Kosovo and now to Darfur and the Congo, there has been serious debate as to what role the United Nations should take when it comes to humanitarian intervention in civil and ethnic conflicts around the world.

Certainly, the record for the UN has not been good when it comes to peace enforcement. Efforts to suppress war or impose peace have been problematic at best when under a UN mandate. In many cases, consensus has been impossible to forge and action has been prevented. In others, a slippery slope into combat was found. Currently, it seems that the UN is leaping into this void wholheartedly.

The UN handled(s) peacekeeping well. For those who are not aware of the difference, peacekeeping is an impartial force invited in by the various combatants as part of a cease fire. The peacekeepers provide a buffer between the parties while they negotiate a lasting truce. Peacekeepers are impartial, lightly armed, and limited in what they can do. Peace enforcement involves the opposite - going in to impose peace through force and taking sides. Troops need to be more heavily armed and aggressive - nation building is seen as necessary for the msot part.

In today's NYT, this article, tackles the newly aggressive, guns blazing approach favored by the UN in the Congo. Frankly, I am beyond skeptical that this will work. I would be interested in your thoughts.

I've always thought UN peacekeepers should take a more assertive role. I'm not a big believer in the UN but if it works I'm for it.

We should have peace enforcement....

The UN is systemically flawed. It cannot live up to its mandate without major revision. This is unlikely to occur. It will remain muddled, corrupt and basically impotent.

I'm for a UDM... United Democratic Nations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I'm for a UDM... United Democratic Nations.

---

There ya go! ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The UN is systemically flawed. It cannot live up to its mandate without major revision. This is unlikely to occur. It will remain muddled, corrupt and basically impotent.

---

I'm not convinced that any "super governement" would do any better. As long as it has it's own beaurocracy the organization look after their own interests first.

I tend to agree with Washington. Our alliances should be functional and temporary. Doing otherwise risks giving up sovereignty to foreign interests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I'm not convinced that any "super governement" would do any better. As long as it has it's own beaurocracy the organization look after their own interests first.

I tend to agree with Washington. Our alliances should be functional and temporary. Doing otherwise risks giving up sovereignty to foreign interests.

---

Bureaucracies are inefficient. Treaties are functional. Promoting peace and democracy is a proper function and in U.S. interests. A league of democratic states actively working together toward that end is also a good thing.

What is the alternative to having a bureaucracy? Less centralized government?

In today's NYT, this article, tackles the newly aggressive, guns blazing approach favored by the UN in the Congo.
Would that be the same new aggressive UN that did the same during the 60-64 troubles in the Congo . It was widely criticised at the time , many countries refused to pay their contributions for the operation due to the UN taking sides in the conflict (which nearly bankrupted the organisation) . But on the whole it worked .
Isn't it crazy , 40 years down the line and the same conflicts are being repeated . :embarassed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

What is the alternative to having a bureaucracy? Less centralized government?

---

Yes. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Bureaucracies are inefficient.

---

You confuse them with global law enforcement. You don't even need a global government to have that. Just make it enforceable on everyone.... ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

You confuse them with global law enforcement. You don't even need a global government to have that. Just make it enforceable on everyone.... ~;)

---

Yes, that should teach those "thems": a bunch of riffraff I say.

Guns blazing in Congo, for what? No matter who we help, we would be performing ethinc cleansing by helping either party. The UN can do nothing there, unless the UN changes it's rules of engagement, what if we go there? A lot of frustrated soldiers that can do nothing to prevent the misery around them, so we go to congo, the UN already has the reputation of being a red-cross agency. Peace keeping and peace enforcement is the same thing when you are just sitting on your asses while debating existionalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Peace keeping and peace enforcement is the same thing when you are just sitting on your asses while debating existionalism.

---

I was going to try and ad something substantial to this thread, but after reading this I can't stop laughing enough to cough it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Yes, that should teach those "thems": a bunch of riffraff I say.

---

Yes, and they speak funny too.... ~D

How does someone control Congo - a huge country the size of Poland, France, Italy, Denmark, Germany, Chezhoslavakia and Sweden COMBINED. 1 million square miles. It borders nine countries, five have sent hostile troops in. And it's all covered in jungle or other tough terrain. The UN does what it can - mostly dodging bullets.

Mobuto controlled the place with tens of thousands of troops and the remnants of the Belgian colonial infrastructure. However, after he was removed, the struggle for power has destroyed most of that infrastructure and as a result there are fewer sources of hard currency to buy arms. The tragic result are local warlords that refuse to recognize anyone from outside their local area but no one, including the government, has enough troops/police to occupy the entire country. Plus secure the tremendous border? How many troops/security/police would it take in total to really control that place? 500,000?

Mobuto stealing billions from his own people and stuffing it in Swiss bank accounts over the course of his entire rule did not help. And of course the Belgians... Well, let's just say don't get me started... And then Congo's neighbors getting into the fray and plundering it.

So what can anyone really do? The NGOs and the UN and the OECD send what aid they can. It mostly gets stolen by the warlords who sell it to (probably the Russians) for AK-47s and ammo.

In terms of guns blazing blue helmets, they better chill themselves out or they're going to become targets, if they are not already by some such warlord or faction or group of murderous bandits. The sad thing is that any heavy duty military action is going to eventually entail some sort of political component - especially when UN troops start dying because they are so poorly equipped. Probably result in a withdrawal eventually and the tragedy in Congo will drag on as it has for 7 years.

The struggle for supreme power in Congo continues - Over 2.5 million dead.

Maybe some sort of political confederacy can be established but that's not going to happen without someone being strong enough to control the enormous place.

********

I think Darfur can be helped though. At least provide the relief for the tens of thousands of refugees trapped in Chad. I think that would be within our capabilities - mostly Air Force job. Kinda a Berlin airlift to those people. That would be the right thing to do.

I thought that this thread, and the skepticism Prole' expressed for the UN, are of renewed importance given the current state of affairs.

Civil War in Syria, A resurgent Al Qaeda in Iraq, continuing violence in Afghanistan, unrest and conflict throughout Islamic Africa...the list goes on. At the same time, the USA is continuing a de facto policy of disengagement -- at least militarily -- throughout the Middle East, despite a minority call for greater involvement.

Despite Prole's skepticism, and however kleptomanaically and laggardly the effort, the UN has had some success of late (2013) in Congo.

Should the USA continue to disengage? With the USA seemingly backing away from it's role as de facto "World Policeman" can aggressive UN efforts such as that in the Congo serve as a practical model moving forward? Are states such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Congo capable of forming working democratic institutions on their own? If not, does the UN or any nation have the right/duty to go in and impose order until such institutions can form -- and remember, folks, that Iraq suggests that the process of such an occupation would be decades-long, likely until an entirely new generation reaches 30-35 years of age and real cultural change takes place.

In addition, some of the old comments and writers are eloquent, interesting, and in some cases shockingly "current" despite the age of the thread.

I think the western world should just sit back and let Africa be Africa.

When Africa has decided to be civilized, ie, a country has someone who actually speak for the PEOPLE, we can take up negotiations again.

But enough of this ******************************************************** where we try to civilize and at the same time get blamed for causing the problems.

LET AFRICA BE AFRICA!!!!!!!!!



Personally, my main concern is: How can we stop the western world being invaded by African people with trash culture and trash upbringing?

And it's only my main concern as, as I write this, there is some negroe outside trying to break into a car. I bet he is high on khat.

Yeah yeah, I called the police, and pizza... Guess who gets here first?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I think the western world should just sit back and let Africa be Africa.

When Africa has decided to be civilized, ie, a country has someone who actually speak for the PEOPLE, we can take up negotiations again.

But enough of this ******************************************************** where we try to civilize and at the same time get blamed for causing the problems.

LET AFRICA BE AFRICA!!!!!!!!!



Personally, my main concern is: How can we stop the western world being invaded by African people with trash culture and trash upbringing?

And it's only my main concern as, as I write this, there is some negroe outside trying to break into a car. I bet he is high on khat.

Yeah yeah, I called the police, and pizza... Guess who gets here first?

---

Boy do you not get it. Africa is Africa BECAUSE of the western world. Outside of the Maghreb and Egypt all African nations are the result of Western interference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Boy do you not get it. Africa is Africa BECAUSE of the western world. Outside of the Maghreb and Egypt all African nations are the result of Western interference.

---

Yeah, and before the white man Africa was some utopia?

It was cultural trash before we came, it's cultural trash now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Yeah, and before the white man Africa was some utopia?

It was cultural trash before we came, it's cultural trash now.

---

Their dancing culture is far superior!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Their dancing culture is far superior!

---

They sure like shaking it to them drums...

I'd still prefer to go to Brazil though... Not only better dancers, but attractive... Oh, and the population and culture isn't absolute trash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I'd still prefer to go to Brazil though... Not only better dancers, but attractive... Oh, and the population and culture isn't absolute trash.

---

Juicy asses doesn't equal an enlightened culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Juicy asses doesn't equal an enlightened culture.

---

Someone is gonna sig this....

I'm not sure it's the point Kadagar_AV is trying to make... but much of our "help" to Africa seems to have only made things worse. The way food aid has been distributed is prominent example of something that sounds good, but is really harmful. Dumping food aid into a fragile economy puts local farmers out of work and only serves to make the nations even more dependent on external aid. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I'm not sure it's the point Kadagar_AV is trying to make... but much of our "help" to Africa seems to have only made things worse. The way food aid has been distributed is prominent example of something that sounds good, but is really harmful. Dumping food aid into a fragile economy puts local farmers out of work and only serves to make the nations even more dependent on external aid. :yes:

---

http://www.amazon.com/Dead-Aid-Worki.../dp/0374139563

In the past fifty years, more than $1 trillion in development-related aid has been transferred from rich countries to Africa. Has this assistance improved the lives of Africans? No. In fact, across the continent, the recipients of this aid are not better off as a result of it, but worse—much worse.

In Dead Aid, Dambisa Moyo describes the state of postwar development policy in Africa today and unflinchingly confronts one of the greatest myths of our time: that billions of dollars in aid sent from wealthy countries to developing African nations has helped to reduce poverty and increase growth. In fact, poverty levels continue to escalate and growth rates have steadily declined—and millions continue to suffer. Provocatively drawing a sharp contrast between African countries that have rejected the aid route and prospered and others that have become aid-dependent and seen poverty increase, Moyo illuminates the way in which overreliance on aid has trapped developing nations in a vicious circle of aid dependency, corruption, market distortion, and further poverty, leaving them with nothing but the “need” for more aid. Debunking the current model of international aid promoted by both Hollywood celebrities and policy makers, Moyo offers a bold new road map for financing development of the world’s poorest countries that guarantees economic growth and a significant decline