Peace Keeping versus Peace Enforcement

**Proletariat** · 05-23-2005, 22:50

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.

**mercian billman** · 05-24-2005, 00:16

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.

**bmolsson** · 05-24-2005, 06:31

We should have peace enforcement....

**Pindar** · 05-24-2005, 06:50

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.

**Papewaio** · 05-24-2005, 06:53

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

**Pindar** · 05-24-2005, 19:27

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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

There ya go!

**Xiahou** · 05-24-2005, 20:32

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.

**Pindar** · 05-24-2005, 21:04

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.