Peace Keeping versus Peace Enforcement

[Xiahou]

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]

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.

[Kanamori]

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

[Tribesman]

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 .

[Xiahou]

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

Yes.

[bmolsson]

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....

[Pindar]

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.

[Fragony]

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.

[Proletariat]

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.

[bmolsson]

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

Yes, and they speak funny too....

[Proletariat]

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.