Political Crossfire Forums

Nism0 · Joined: 08 Jul 2005 Posts: 14

I don't know much about the subject so thats why I'm asking. How effective would everyone consider the U.N. at humanitarian aid in developing countries (for example Sierra Leone 1995) and stopping genocide? It seems to me that the U.N. is not willing to use any force to stop genocide especially if they've recently lost a few peacekeepers. Its like they get scared and loose sight of the cause every time someone dies. I don't know if them giving up to easily, or not getting involved at all is justified and it only appears to be a joke, or if in fact they are a joke, and do not have much to offer to nations who need them the most. Whats everyones opinion on the U.N.'s involvment in countries plagued with genocide or similar problems.

Eton · Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2005 7:38 am Post subject:

I can see where this is heading already, so lets clear a few things up.

Nothing and I mean nothing can be done by the UN unless the permanent Five give the green light. The P5 are the US, UK, France, China and Russia.

So when people complain that the UN just stands by while genocide is committed would do well to remember that one of the P5 has probably vetoed it.

During the Bosnian war the Russians were quick to veto anything that would harm the Serbs though the other members were not so enthusiastic.
In Bosnia 400,000 soldiers were fighting each other and the UN was only allowed to send 20,000 peacekeepers. NATO wouldn't even set foot in Bosnia until the war was over :!:
The point being only send peace keepers when there is peace to keep.

As for Rwanda, that didn't require a peacekeeping mission, it required a full scale military offensive by the great powers - beyond the capabilities of the UN. The P5 including the US were threatening to veto any UN resolution on Rwanda - in America's case because of memories of Somalia.

So will people kindly re-direct their anger and disgust at the P5 and not the UN as a whole. If you want to make it more efficient then strip the P5 of their veto powers.

Nism0 · Joined: 08 Jul 2005 Posts: 14

Why does the P5 exist at all? There has to be some benefeit of them.

Chris29 · Joined: 13 Jul 2004 Posts: 2534 Location: Calgary, Canada

Nism0 wrote: I don't know much about the subject so thats why I'm asking. How effective would everyone consider the U.N. at humanitarian aid in developing countries (for example Sierra Leone 1995) and stopping genocide? It seems to me that the U.N. is not willing to use any force to stop genocide especially if they've recently lost a few peacekeepers. Its like they get scared and loose sight of the cause every time someone dies. I don't know if them giving up to easily, or not getting involved at all is justified and it only appears to be a joke, or if in fact they are a joke, and do not have much to offer to nations who need them the most. Whats everyones opinion on the U.N.'s involvment in countries plagued with genocide or similar problems.

Well with regards to the success of the UN in humanitarian missions I think I can attest for that. As an individual who used to work for the UN in Africa on humanitarian missions I have seen the results first hand. And yes the UN is VERY effective.

As for genocide the UN is not quite as effective as Eton pointed out. To no fault of the entire UN organization but almost entirely on the p5. In fact with Rwanda the US denied that genocide even occured in the region :roll:

UN peacekeeping missions are getting a little more powerful. A good example of this is the UN's involvement in the Congo where for the first time peacekeepers are taking offensive actions against terrorists and militia.

Chris29 · Joined: 13 Jul 2004 Posts: 2534 Location: Calgary, Canada

Nism0 wrote: Why does the P5 exist at all? There has to be some benefeit of them.

well it ensures that the UN accurately represents the reality of the balance of power in the world. However the p5 has grown completely out of date IMO and I do believe the UN would be more effective without them.

Nism0 · Joined: 08 Jul 2005 Posts: 14

Does the UN control an army that would be capable of invading a country to stop an atrocity like genocide?

Chris29 · Joined: 13 Jul 2004 Posts: 2534 Location: Calgary, Canada

No the Un does not control an army. It has peacekeepers which are made up of the voluntary commitments from member states. Peacekeeping missions are also subject to UN resolutions.

Marcus Aurelius · Joined: 11 Jul 2005 Posts: 101

True, but UN peacekeepers aren't exactly renowned for their effectiveness. Many are sent from poorer countries, such as Pakistan, who are paid to contribute. Richer countries, for whom the compensation is insufficient, stays on the sidelines.

I would argue that the UN is effective for two reasons: It always comes up short in long term projects ensuring peace and prosperity, and it has failed to prevent genocide, the most pressing humanitarian crisis possible.
Yes, they're generally competent at humanitarian aid, but so is FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency, for any non-Yanks)

Nism0 · Joined: 08 Jul 2005 Posts: 14

Are the peacekeepers ineffective because they are poorly trained, or because they have many regulations and roe to follow?

Locke25 · Joined: 12 Mar 2005 Posts: 3620 Location: Georgia

Nism0 wrote: Are the peacekeepers ineffective because they are poorly trained, or because they have many regulations and roe to follow?

probably a little bit of both

Chris29 · Joined: 13 Jul 2004 Posts: 2534 Location: Calgary, Canada

Marcus Aurelius wrote: True, but UN peacekeepers aren't exactly renowned for their effectiveness. Many are sent from poorer countries, such as Pakistan, who are paid to contribute. Richer countries, for whom the compensation is insufficient, stays on the sidelines.

I would argue that the UN is effective for two reasons: It always comes up short in long term projects ensuring peace and prosperity, and it has failed to prevent genocide, the most pressing humanitarian crisis possible.
Yes, they're generally competent at humanitarian aid, but so is FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency, for any non-Yanks)

Well I would disagree that peacekeepers are ineffective. After all it was peacekeepers that prevented the Suez crisis from turning into world war 3. Yes they don't aLways prevent wars, but if there was an answer to preventing or stopping wars I don't think there would be much need for the security council. Even in Bosnia the peacekeepers saved a lot of people. The problem with peacekeeping like you said is a lack of member state support. More commitments by member states in terms of funds and soldiers is needed for the peacekeeping forces to be more effective.

As for your reasons why you believe the UN is ineffective well:
1) I don't see any basis that you can make to say that the UN comes up short on long term projects. Could you give an example?
2) You can't say that the UN does not prevent Genocide because there is no measure of that. If the UN did in fact prevent a Genocide how would we know? Plus no one ever said the UN can solve all the worlds problems, I understand that there are still shortcomings but again this is not the fault of the UN but rather the fault of UN member states, particularly the P5. Lets not forget that it was the US that prevented any military action being taken in Rwanda.

As for the Humanitarian work of the UN, for one they are extremely effective and as an individual who has done work with them I can more then attest for that as can the statistics. Also FEMA is an emergency aid organization not a long term humanitarian agency. The humanitarian work of the UN is truly unique and very very necessary.

Marcus Aurelius · Joined: 11 Jul 2005 Posts: 101

UN success stories -

Recognizing Taiwan and defusing that little crisis
Using the power of sanctions against Iraq in order to bring it to heel
Preventing the spread of nuclear weapons (North Korea, Iran)
Solving the Kurdish problem
Taking care of Serbia in 1990's
Prosecuting more than a handful of ethnic killers

Oh, wait..... those are all fantasies

The UN is woefully short-sighted. It is not equipped to produce long term solutions. Also: It's a piece of cake to see a genocide in the works. Orders, phone calls, arrangements. Everything leaves a trail. That's just an excuse for the UN to wring its hands. Granted, the reponsibility lies with the memeber states as well, but that's no excuse, either. I should underline the nuclear proliferation issue. The IAEA and UN have failed miserably in that regard.

Eton · Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:33 am Post subject:

The UN cannot do anything without the blessing of member states, specifically the P5 - so actually it is an excuse. If member states refuse to recognise genocide or permit their soldiers to be used to stop it, then what the hell can the UN do, it has no army of its own.

Chris29 · Joined: 13 Jul 2004 Posts: 2534 Location: Calgary, Canada

Marcus Aurelius wrote: UN success stories -

Recognizing Taiwan and defusing that little crisis
Using the power of sanctions against Iraq in order to bring it to heel
Preventing the spread of nuclear weapons (North Korea, Iran)
Solving the Kurdish problem
Taking care of Serbia in 1990's
Prosecuting more than a handful of ethnic killers

Oh, wait..... those are all fantasies

Taiwan - seeing as how China is one of the P5 it would be pretty tough to convince them not to veto any action there

Using Sanctions against Iraq - funny thing I didn't see any further acts of aggression by Iraq. Unfortunately Sanctions are grossly ineffective and cannot get the general public to kick out a dictator

Prventing the spread of Nukes - I'm sorry I didn't realize the UN was a woorld government, nor did I realize that they have an army or police force. The reality is that the UN is a treaty organization so countries have nothing else then diplomatic pressure to keep them from taking any action.

Solving the kurdish problem - once again the UN is not a world government thus it does not have the ability to draw the lines that would create a kurdish state. They already made an Israeli state and we saw what has resulted from that.

Serbia - actually the UN did take action unlike most other groups in Serbia, because peacekeepers and diplomatic power doesn't stop a psycotic dictator you blame the UN?? - the very organization that was saving lives there. :roll:

Prosecuting Ethnic killers - Sudan is a prime example, last time I checked there were 140 governmental and Janjaweed individuals being tried at the ICC for crimes against humanity. General Pinochet has been convicted and is under house arrest for the rest of his life. There were numerous individuals tried from Rwanda. Not to mention Slobadan Milosovic. The biggest problem with this is the US still fails to recognize the legitimacy of the ICC. This is in no way the UN's fault.

Marcus Aurelius wrote: The UN is woefully short-sighted. It is not equipped to produce long term solutions. Also: It's a piece of cake to see a genocide in the works. Orders, phone calls, arrangements. Everything leaves a trail. That's just an excuse for the UN to wring its hands. Granted, the reponsibility lies with the memeber states as well, but that's no excuse, either. I should underline the nuclear proliferation issue. The IAEA and UN have failed miserably in that regard.

First off it would be nice if you could prove this in any way, especially since you are talking to an individual who worked for the UN in Africa dealing with SUSTAIBALE development. Without naming too many success stories such as the eradication of smallpox I can say based on my own experiences that the UN is STRICTLY focused on long term goals. Kyoto wether you agree with it or not is strictly focused on long term goals.

Also regarding the genocide. Yes it usually is pretty eassy to figure out that a confrontation is going to occur. Determining wether it will in fact be a genocide is rather hard. But seeing as how again the UN is not a world government and seeing as how it has no intelligence agency such as the CIA I find it hard to immagine how exactly the UN would get ahold of all of this. Now after all of these problems you get to the biggest problem, the P5. Rwanda is the greatest example of the failure of the p5. Had Bill Clinton merely said yay rather than nay a million lives could have been saved. Thats pretty good justification I think for reforming the UN WITHOUT the veto vote in the Security Council

Marcus Aurelius · Joined: 11 Jul 2005 Posts: 101

Taiwan, Kurds, Nuclear Prolif - Why isn't the UN more like a world govt? It needs to represent more than just a paper tiger. I agree for the need to strip veto power.

Serbia - Tell that to Srbrenica. The UN did a little, but was generally ineffective in securing peace. NATO did the heavy lifting

Sanctions - Did nothing except help kill 2 million Iraqi kids, expose UN corruption through Oil-for-Food, and kept Sadaam in power

ICC- First of all, people have wanted to try US officials for war crimes, so we have a good reason to balk. Regardlee, the ICTR, which we do recognize, has by 2003 arrested 60 and convicted 8 for the entire Rwandan massacres. This while Rwanda holds 100,000 prisioners who also had a role. One more thing, the head of UN peacekeeping intially failed to pass on UNAMIR's info warning of a coming massacre. And who was this head? None other than Kofi Annan

Please point out any notable, large scale successes in the area of development. While I respect the expertise and zeal of the UNDP and other organizations, they lack comprehensiveness and most of all, funding. The last budget for UNDP I saw came to 566 million dollars. That is absolutely pathetic. I know the UN relies on contributions, but the statement stands. I watch several independent media sources, such as Dangerous Places, Strategypage, and GlobalSecurity, and the impression I get is that the UN only pinpricks the surface of the real problems in Africa, avoiding the underlying causes. Once again, this can be ascribed to insufficent vision at the higher levels and lack of funding.

Btw, Bill Clinton was not the only world leader to balk at intervention. I hate the man, but no other country wanted to lead, either.

Chris29 · Joined: 13 Jul 2004 Posts: 2534 Location: Calgary, Canada

Marcus Aurelius wrote: Taiwan, Kurds, Nuclear Prolif - Why isn't the UN more like a world govt? It needs to represent more than just a paper tiger. I agree for the need to strip veto power.

Wow, I am in no way suggesting the UN should be a world government. World Government is not something I support at all. What I am saying is you can't criticize the UN for something that could only be reguired by a World Government. All too many times people confuse the UN for a world government when in fact it is a treaty organization.

Quote: Serbia - Tell that to Srbrenica. The UN did a little, but was generally ineffective in securing peace. NATO did the heavy lifting

And what exactly would you expect, the UN a diplomatic organizatioin can do very little once ware results. Thats when military organizations like NATO are useful.

Quote: Sanctions - Did nothing except help kill 2 million Iraqi kids, expose UN corruption through Oil-for-Food, and kept Sadaam in power

And yet it was the US the was the strongest purveyor of Sanctions. BTW the oil for food program exposed the corruption of a few individuals in the UN and member states, it does not in anyways demonstrate a general sense of corruption through the organization. Oil-for-Food despite its corruption did save lives. The same cannot be said for the transfer of oil permitted by the US to countries such as Jordan, which btw amounted to a much larger amount. Also removing sanctions or having none at all would not have removed Saddam from power.

Quote: ICC- First of all, people have wanted to try US officials for war crimes, so we have a good reason to balk. Regardlee, the ICTR, which we do recognize, has by 2003 arrested 60 and convicted 8 for the entire Rwandan massacres. This while Rwanda holds 100,000 prisioners who also had a role. One more thing, the head of UN peacekeeping intially failed to pass on UNAMIR's info warning of a coming massacre. And who was this head? None other than Kofi Annan

So the US is worried that a few radical countries with dictatorships want US officials tried at the ICC. I suppose next you would respond by saying the ICC is good as long as you don't try and US officials right? As for the ICTR they are going after the big guys that started this not the little soldiers who only carried out the commands. Plus they are still going on with this so all is not done. The Nuremburg Trials after all following the Holocaust tried less people and arrested even fewer.

Now Kofi Annans work as Under Secretary General of PeaceKeeping operations cannot IMO be criticized here. Again he cant do anything without the support of the member states particularly the P5. Yes he could have ordered them to hold positions and interven, what would have been the result - the massacre of the same number of tutsis as well as UN peacekeeping forces. Think of what would happen if he allowed this, further countries would cut down on providing peacekeepers. Unfr=ortunately as commander and chief of the UN peacekeeping forces you have to know when you can take action and when you have to accept defeat before inflicting further problems.

Quote: Please point out any notable, large scale successes in the area of development.

Alright just to name a few:
- the complete eradication of smallpow - a disease that was as crippling as malaria
- Polio has almost been eradicated and has only been seen in 10 countries
- immunizing millions of children against such diseases as malaria, tb and other parasitic diseases
- providing aid and protection to over 25 million refugees
- assisting elections in more then 80 countries
- the WFP (World Food Programme) provides one third of the worlds food aid
- safely pushed intependence for 80 countries

theres a few to think about but the greater achievements are harder to recognize because they cannot be compared. Development in some countries cannot really be understood because we do not know what development would have occured without the UN.

Quote: While I respect the expertise and zeal of the UNDP and other organizations, they lack comprehensiveness and most of all, funding. The last budget for UNDP I saw came to 566 million dollars. That is absolutely pathetic. I know the UN relies on contributions, but the statement stands.

Dont forget that the UNDP is merely an organizer of all other UN agencies involved in the area of development. I worked under the UNDP while I was working for the WFP in Africa. Also the total UN system (minus the World Bank) spends 6.5 billion a year on operational activities. Also this really has nothing to do with contributions although that is a problem. The UNDP organizes much of the foreign aid from the first world. This does not count against the expenditures of the UNDP.

Quote: I watch several independent media sources, such as Dangerous Places, Strategypage, and GlobalSecurity, and the impression I get is that the UN only pinpricks the surface of the real problems in Africa, avoiding the underlying causes. Once again, this can be ascribed to insufficent vision at the higher levels and lack of funding.

Well for one if you focus on news media with those kind of names I suggest you broaden your focus. Might as well look at Janes for all of your news. But would you care to point out some of these underlying causes that are not being addressed by the UN. Also the very idea that there is a lack of vision at the highest levels of the UN towards Africa is totally absurd. Annan from the very start of his adult life has been focused on issues surrounding Africa, his education and early career all focused on this. To say that he has a lack of vision is beyond comprehension to me. The UN, particularly the UNDP is the leading organization dealing with development in Africa.

Quote: Btw, Bill Clinton was not the only world leader to balk at intervention. I hate the man, but no other country wanted to lead, either.

It is not a matter of a country leading, if the UN doesn't allow it nothing will happen. BTW in a peacekeeping operation there are no countries that lead.

Marcus Aurelius · Joined: 11 Jul 2005 Posts: 101

Okay, setting aside the world government for now, your list of achievements

WFP - Doesn't count. The program does an excellent job of curing symptoms of starvation, but IMO has not solved unlying issues of the food supply, on any large scale.

I will concede the eradication of polio and smallpox. However, both of those were decades ago (I think) and malaria and TB are still VERY real threats today.

Elections and Independence - If the UN had any influence in those areas, it was a done deal. You pointed out its a treaty organization. It's a minor accessory at most in these ventures

Refugees - Read the book HUMAN CARGO. The HCR and co. have failed to respond adequately in areas away from global attention. The UN has also failed to put pressure on members to lighten their restrictions on asylum seekers. Also, little distinction is drawn btw economic migrants and aslyum seekers, to the detriment of the refugees.

I know perfectly well noone leads a UN peacekeeper operation. I was speaking in political terms. If one P5 member had taken a political lead in pushing for a resolution, I'm confident action would have been taken. The problem was, no strategic interests were at risk. And Kofi Annan... did you read the post? He didn't even TELL them. Forget taking action, he failed to inform those who needed to know most. To me, that's an act of gross negligence, unmitigated by the later lack of action.

There was no real army to speak of in Rwanda, just a rabble of racists armed with machetes. So there's no "just following orders". The radio stations were even whipping up the general pop into a frenzy. No minor willing participant should be exempt from justice.

Chris29 · Joined: 13 Jul 2004 Posts: 2534 Location: Calgary, Canada

Marcus Aurelius wrote: WFP - Doesn't count. The program does an excellent job of curing symptoms of starvation, but IMO has not solved unlying issues of the food supply, on any large scale.

Maybe I should remind you that my work with the UN was as a worker with the WFP. My work in Africa dealt stictly with the food supply so I take particular offense to that statement. Also it is important to note that the food supply on the global scale is not under the control of the UN let alone any smaller institutions like the WFP, the food supply is controlled by the forces of capitalism.

Quote: I will concede the eradication of polio and smallpox. However, both of those were decades ago (I think) and malaria and TB are still VERY real threats today.

Well as I am sure you will understand the eradication of a disease i spretty damn tough, containing it is pretty damn tough but yet the UN is making progress on these diseases too.

Quote: Elections and Independence - If the UN had any influence in those areas, it was a done deal. You pointed out its a treaty organization. It's a minor accessory at most in these ventures

what about the trusteeship council, they oversaw the transition to independence for all of the colonial powers. If that isn't a success I don't know what is.

Quote: Refugees - Read the book HUMAN CARGO. The HCR and co. have failed to respond adequately in areas away from global attention. The UN has also failed to put pressure on members to lighten their restrictions on asylum seekers. Also, little distinction is drawn btw economic migrants and aslyum seekers, to the detriment of the refugees.

I will admit that there are certainly short comings of the UNHCR but the fact is that they still save millions of lives and prevent a lot of persecution of many refugees. The biggest problem with the refugee situations is the imense amount of political pressure in refugee scenarios. While the UN may not be able to convince a country to take refugees it does prevent for the most part the severe abuse towards refugees that we saw before the UN took action. The biggest problem with the refugee problems is the lack of political support in other countries towards taking in refugees

Quote: I know perfectly well noone leads a UN peacekeeper operation. I was speaking in political terms. If one P5 member had taken a political lead in pushing for a resolution, I'm confident action would have been taken. The problem was, no strategic interests were at risk. And Kofi Annan... did you read the post? He didn't even TELL them. Forget taking action, he failed to inform those who needed to know most. To me, that's an act of gross negligence, unmitigated by the later lack of action.

No no action would have been taken because the US would have vetoed it. That is the problem with the veto that one nation can derail something as important as that. Had any resolution passed the US would have been binding to take action as per the UN Charter, because they could not afford to send any more soldiers to Africa for political reasons they refused to admit it was a genocide. Wether or not a single member of the p5 took a political lead would make no difference.

As for Kofi Annan, for one it would be useful for a link so I can see what really happened. But I highly doubt he was the only one who heard of this, also who exactly are the people that needed to know?

Quote: There was no real army to speak of in Rwanda, just a rabble of racists armed with machetes. So there's no "just following orders". The radio stations were even whipping up the general pop into a frenzy. No minor willing participant should be exempt from justice.

Yes everyone should be held accountable and for the large majority of the individuals the punishment come from within the state or the region. However when it comes to the major players in this that is when the ICC must take a role. That is beacause their crimes are not just local but international. Of those 100, 000 individuals still held in Rwanda the vast majority are what could be classified as militia or soldiers