The UN

[Laurens]

Do you think the UN are an effective organization?

If not, what do you think could be changed to increase their effectiveness?

 

[Dogma's Demise]

Maybe have a Human Rights council that isn't plagued by theocracies and dictatorships?

 

[Laurens]

The UN has shown itself to be useless in the face of genocide (I'd recommend watching a documentary called 'Ghosts of Rwanda' for some insight into what I mean here). It was also walked all over by the Taliban, and essentially driven out of Kabul by them.

I'm not an expert on it's structure etc. But from my amateurish perspective I think the UN needs a little more clout. If there are all the warning signs that a genocide may take place - the UN needs to have all the means at its disposal to do whatever it can to stop it. If they are faced with brutal non-compliant groups such as the Taliban - who essentially cut them off, and reduced the flow of aid going into Afghanistan, they need to be less of a push over. How this can be achieved I don't know, but I'd like to hear some of your thoughts on the matter.

 

[nudger1964]

The UN is a diplomacy forum.
I am quite sure it will be bringing pressure to bear on any member states which may have influence over groups such as the Taliban. It can make member states aware of the problems, it can discuss members ideas for resolutions - but the resolutions have to come from its members.
Its easy to point to cases where the UN has seemed inefective. It is a little more difficult to see what might have been had we not had an institution such as the UN.
If you are looking for a global policeman, then you would need a new organisation altogether, because that is at odds with what the UN is, and why its members joined.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

The UN has shown itself to be useless in the face of genocide (I'd recommend watching a documentary called 'Ghosts of Rwanda' for some insight into what I mean here). It was also walked all over by the Taliban, and essentially driven out of Kabul by them.

I'm not an expert on it's structure etc. But from my amateurish perspective I think the UN needs a little more clout. If there are all the warning signs that a genocide may take place - the UN needs to have all the means at its disposal to do whatever it can to stop it. If they are faced with brutal non-compliant groups such as the Taliban - who essentially cut them off, and reduced the flow of aid going into Afghanistan, they need to be less of a push over. How this can be achieved I don't know, but I'd like to hear some of your thoughts on the matter.

What the UN needs is its own army which listens only two the UN. I thought that countries can lend troops to the UN but that these troops weren't bound down to the UN. If a situation were to arise where a country is in danger, other countries can choose if they give troops to the cause if the UN were to intervene. It is weak and under powered and will most likely meet its end when the next global military conflict breaks out.

 

[nudger1964]

so far as i thought, UN peacekeeping forces require a treaty between factions, or to be otherwise invited by a nation to keep the peace. It seems very different from military intervention.

 

[Laurens]

The UN is a diplomacy forum.
I am quite sure it will be bringing pressure to bear on any member states which may have influence over groups such as the Taliban. It can make member states aware of the problems, it can discuss members ideas for resolutions - but the resolutions have to come from its members.
Its easy to point to cases where the UN has seemed inefective. It is a little more difficult to see what might have been had we not had an institution such as the UN.
If you are looking for a global policeman, then you would need a new organisation altogether, because that is at odds with what the UN is, and why its members joined.

Am I correct in stating that the UN is also a 'peace keeping' organization?

In this front it is extremely ineffectual, Rwanda is a perfect example of this. At a time when Rwanda needed some force to keep the peace there instead the UN declined to intervene, leaving countless thousands to be butchered with machetes. I fail to see how declining to intervene constitutes a peace keeping program, especially when so much blood was shed as a result.

Then you have the massacre at Srebrenica - a region declared a 'UN safe area', with some 400 Dutch peace keepers who did nothing to prevent the largest mass slaughter on European soil since World War II.

If diplomacy is all they represent then you can't really fault them, however they operate under the pretence of peacekeeping and security, and station troops in various regions throughout the world. They have repeatedly shown that on this front they are entirely ineffective.

Lets not forget that the second Charter mandates that the UN is required: "To maintain international peace and security.... (and if necessary to enforce the peace by) taking preventive or enforcement action," (http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml)

 

[nudger1964]

it does that through the security council, which of course is made up of member states, 5 of which have the power of veto.
Do you think if you took the power of veto away, the US, or china, or russia would remain members?
The moment you try to give the UN powers over the military of its member states then they will no longer be member states.
The UN can only do what its members are prepared to do.

I do agree to a point, that the UN is fairly ineffective at aggressively enforcing peace. That can only come from its members. I do see its role as a dimplomacy forum being vital for preventing conflicts between nations arising in the first place. I cant say it always works, but it seems to be the best thing we have.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

As others have said, the UN was predominantly a diplomacy-oriented organisation, not a enforcement-oriented one.

Interestingly, Ben Bova's book, Peace-keepers, addressed this lack of teeth: in the story a privately-funded team of international spec-ops deal with a particular problem.

The end of the book, however, features something which I found quite interesting: UN Peacekeepers, one-by-one, tear off their national flags from their uniforms.

Prophetic?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Laurens]

I agree that the UN can be effective on some fronts, however I think it could be improved in it's prevention, and peacekeeping missions.

Sure diplomacy can be effective, and in lots of cases it works, however it would be naive to assume that diplomacy is effective in all peace keeping missions. When you get a group like the Taliban who shut down all roads to diplomacy, this mode isn't very effective. The UN can issue mandates etc. but what is a mandate if you don't mandate it? Thugs across the world can ignore mandates and get away with it - thus inspiring other thugs to do the same. Sanctions may be effective in some cases, but not all. There are occasions in world affairs when the diplomatic solutions run dry... Diplomacy is not really going to have much affect on a bunch of loons intent upon committing ethnic cleansing, these kinds of people intent upon violence need to be stopped forcefully, I believe.

If ethnic cleansing or genocide takes place or there are signs that it is about to, and diplomacy has broken down, the UN should issue a mandate - but not one that can be ignored lightly; stop the ethnic cleansing or we will send troops in and make you stop - followed by action if the mandate is ignored. This would make people think twice before ignoring mandates, and make the diplomacy option more effective (people are more likely to listen and be open to talking if they know you have lots of guns).

So I guess in short, I think the UN needs its own army, with which it needs to enforce mandates when all diplomacy has broken down.

 

[bluejatheist]

I agree that the UN can be effective on some fronts, however I think it could be improved in it's prevention, and peacekeeping missions.

Sure diplomacy can be effective, and in lots of cases it works, however it would be naive to assume that diplomacy is effective in all peace keeping missions. When you get a group like the Taliban who shut down all roads to diplomacy, this mode isn't very effective. The UN can issue mandates etc. but what is a mandate if you don't mandate it? Thugs across the world can ignore mandates and get away with it - thus inspiring other thugs to do the same. Sanctions may be effective in some cases, but not all. There are occasions in world affairs when the diplomatic solutions run dry... Diplomacy is not really going to have much affect on a bunch of loons intent upon committing ethnic cleansing, these kinds of people intent upon violence need to be stopped forcefully, I believe.

If ethnic cleansing or genocide takes place or there are signs that it is about to, and diplomacy has broken down, the UN should issue a mandate - but not one that can be ignored lightly; stop the ethnic cleansing or we will send troops in and make you stop - followed by action if the mandate is ignored. This would make people think twice before ignoring mandates, and make the diplomacy option more effective (people are more likely to listen and be open to talking if they know you have lots of guns).

So I guess in short, I think the UN needs its own army, with which it needs to enforce mandates when all diplomacy has broken down.

Please explain how a military intervention in say, Rwanda, would be successful without:

1: Wiping out at least one belligerent faction in essentially a different genocide.

2: A relocation of one of the belligerent factions which would displace millions(or however many), and raise another problem of where they could go without another conflict.

3: A long term occupation leading to an insurgency and creating a financial black hole for whomever is funding the action, and a debilitating and possibly high-casualty situation for the military personnel(Who likely have no personal motivation as they are non-native) involved, which must be maintained possibly for years while solutions to the civil problem, such as education and development of infrastructure, are put in place. These solutions may not even be possible depending upon the aggression of insurgent groups, if they are present. Nothing inspires violent revolt like being controlled by foreigners with weapons.

4: Dispensing military weapons and equipment across an unstable state where they may be stolen, illicitly traded, or captured in engagements

5: Creating further diplomatic incidents with regional powers by escalating a conflict that is near their territory or affects their trade or foreign affairs, and creating divisions within the UN membership which breeds even larger disputes on the global scale. African nations would view the presence of a western(Presumably) military as a threat to their sovereignty. World Powers will not want their spheres of influence disturbed by dubious shuffling of political balances.

6: Delegating power of enforcement to native leaders which may have untrustworthy, ambitious or criminal goals in mind.


Just a few possible reasons off the top of my head why the UN generally doesn't rely on military engagements to solve major problems.


(Edited a bunch make sure to refresh)

 

[Laurens]

Please explain how a military intervention in say, Rwanda, would be successful without:

1: Wiping out at least one belligerent faction in essentially a different genocide.

2: A relocation of one of the belligerent factions which would displace millions(or however many), and raise another problem of where they could go without another conflict.

3: A long term occupation leading to an insurgency and creating a financial black hole for whomever is funding the action, and a debilitating and possibly high-casualty situation for the military personnel(Who likely have no personal motivation as they are non-native) involved, which must be maintained possibly for years while solutions to the civil problem, such as education and development of infrastructure, are put in place. These solutions may not even be possible depending upon the aggression of insurgent groups, if they are present. Nothing inspires violent revolt like being controlled by foreign nationals.

4: Dispensing military weapons and equipment across an unstable state where they may be stolen, illicitly traded, or captured in engagements

5: Creating further diplomatic incidents with regional powers by escalating a conflict that is near their territory or affects their trade or foreign affairs, and creating divisions within the UN membership which breeds even larger disputes on the global scale.

6: Delegating power of enforcement to native leaders which may have untrustworthy, ambitious or criminal goals in mind.


Just a few possible reasons off the top of my head why the UN generally doesn't rely on military engagements to solve major problems.


(Edited a bunch make sure to refresh)

1. Wiping out isn't the only option. Remember that the majority of the butcherers in the Rwandan genocide were armed with machetes - they weren't a fully equipped army. I'm sure the violence could have been controlled by the presence of heavy arms - without any need to slaughter the would-be murderers en masse.

2. Relocation of the belligerent factions need not have been necessary, creating a safe area for refugees to flee too could have worked though.

3. Its possible that such a situation could have arisen, however I think the threat of forceful action would in many instances cause any would-be genocidal maniac to think twice about going there. I think part of the reason why genocide does take place is because leaders see it occur in other countries and see no real action taken against it, thus they do not feel there would be any consequences for them. Heavier consequences would be a deterrent more than anything else.

4. Again, a risk in any conflict, however I think it would be a risk worth taking in order to prevent mass slaughter.

5. This is a possibility, but should we really stand by complacently whilst mass murder is being committed just because it might have consequences in the surrounding countries? You could make the same argument against any conflict, saying it shouldn't have been done because it affected the stability in the region. All conflicts do to an extent. But so do unstable genocidal regimes.

6. Would that necessarily have to happen?

I'm not advocating that force should be used excessively in all instances. I'm thinking more along the lines that an effective threat of force can work as a deterrent. Genocide occurs when leaders think they can get away with it, perhaps if they don't think they'll get away with it then it would occur less often, and the world would be better off.

 

[bluejatheist]

1. Wiping out isn't the only option. Remember that the majority of the butcherers in the Rwandan genocide were armed with machetes - they weren't a fully equipped army. I'm sure the violence could have been controlled by the presence of heavy arms - without any need to slaughter the would-be murderers en masse.

Yet this only prevents them from doing so in the immediate future. The moment you leave they will resume their actions.

2. Relocation of the belligerent factions need not have been necessary, creating a safe area for refugees to flee too could have worked though.

Displacement is still displacement. You must still worry about whether they are welcome where you move them, and if the new location can even support them.

3. Its possible that such a situation could have arisen, however I think the threat of forceful action would in many instances cause any would-be genocidal maniac to think twice about going there. I think part of the reason why genocide does take place is because leaders see it occur in other countries and see no real action taken against it, thus they do not feel there would be any consequences for them. Heavier consequences would be a deterrent more than anything else.

That depends on just how willing you are to go. Are you prepared to fight a conventional war, and deal with the massive political, financial, and human consequences of it? If not, they won't give you the time of day.

4. Again, a risk in any conflict, however I think it would be a risk worth taking in order to prevent mass slaughter.

See #1, you just gave some of those machete wielders military grade weapons and armored vehicles. Now what? It's a snow ball effect.

5. This is a possibility, but should we really stand by complacently whilst mass murder is being committed just because it might have consequences in the surrounding countries? You could make the same argument against any conflict, saying it shouldn't have been done because it affected the stability in the region. All conflicts do to an extent. But so do unstable genocidal regimes.

The main issue is that the unity required for the UN to maintain such a force would crumble when you force member states to start taking sides.

6. Would that necessarily have to happen?

Native personnel are needed to interact with local population and assist military in engaging forces in lands they aren't used to, and to establish native forces to pick up the slack when foreign forces eventually depart.

I'm not advocating that force should be used excessively in all instances. I'm thinking more along the lines that an effective threat of force can work as a deterrent. Genocide occurs when leaders think they can get away with it, perhaps if they don't think they'll get away with it then it would occur less often, and the world would be better off.

Never make a threat if you can't back it up, you WILL be called on your bluff, also remember deterrents don't stop local insurgents fighting for their sovereignty. Insurgency is not at all a certainty in military intervention, but it's very likely if the people feel suppressed, which is easy to do intentionally or not. The moment you're challenged and fail to respond, you wont be taken seriously. The UN would need to maintain the resources and unity to engage every situation to the end, otherwise the power of threats of intervention will corrode.

The problem is that a military intervention is only a last resort with significant consequences, a medication that has a chance of causing further, worse illness. The threat of military intervention only lasts so long before you must either commit to what may be a costly, unpopular and likely vain war, or a loss of force in your threats.

I do see perhaps your main idea, that the first step is to stop the actual genocide and THEN tackle the long term problem. The problem is military threat and intervention are some of the reasons why there are problems like genocide in the first place.
(Sorry if my editing so much made replying a chore)

 

[Laurens]

I do take on board what you're saying. There are issues with my ideas - which I'd need to consider.

I'm just not sure how you tackle someone like the Taliban on diplomatic grounds. This is a group who showed complete disregard for diplomacy, the UN had a very hard time negotiating anything with them. They also showed a complete disregard for much of the Afghan people (with extra contempt for half of the population), they refused to allow females to use the same hospitals as males for example escalating an already dire a humanitarian crisis. They actively supported terrorists. Were funding themselves through drug trafficking, and they carried out a brutal ethnic cleansing campaign in the north.

How do you deal with these people? All diplomacy had broken down, there's a humanitarian crisis in the country, and it is being controlled by insane, violent warlords who answer only to themselves. Do you leave them to it, and say 'fine! screw you guys', and sit and watch while they continue to abuse their people? Or do you intervene and liberate them from these violent, oppressive theocrats?

I personally feel that intervention is necessary in cases such as this. Its then a matter of consistency for me, I can't say intervention is fine in one place, but not in another. I think violent genocidal threats need to be eliminated by force if necessary. I understand that in reality there are lots of things to consider, however, I stick by my conviction that such threats need to be dealt with rather than ignored when diplomacy fails.

 

[bluejatheist]

I do take on board what you're saying. There are issues with my ideas - which I'd need to consider.

I'm just not sure how you tackle someone like the Taliban on diplomatic grounds. This is a group who showed complete disregard for diplomacy, the UN had a very hard time negotiating anything with them. They also showed a complete disregard for much of the Afghan people (with extra contempt for half of the population), they refused to allow females to use the same hospitals as males for example escalating an already dire a humanitarian crisis. They actively supported terrorists. Were funding themselves through drug trafficking, and they carried out a brutal ethnic cleansing campaign in the north.

How do you deal with these people? All diplomacy had broken down, there's a humanitarian crisis in the country, and it is being controlled by insane, violent warlords who answer only to themselves. Do you leave them to it, and say 'fine! screw you guys', and sit and watch while they continue to abuse their people? Or do you intervene and liberate them from these violent, oppressive theocrats?

I personally feel that intervention is necessary in cases such as this. Its then a matter of consistency for me, I can't say intervention is fine in one place, but not in another. I think violent genocidal threats need to be eliminated by force if necessary. I understand that in reality there are lots of things to consider, however, I stick by my conviction that such threats need to be dealt with rather than ignored when diplomacy fails.

We were just talking about this in the chat actually. It really comes down to deciding whether there is an obligation, morally or whatnot, to intervene. Can intervention really help, or can only the people of Africa(or wherever) and Africa alone suffer and make their own way from depravity and war to stability. One must also remember that politically, the only threat of a localized genocide is to the local people, not the world- numerous genocides have occurred without much notice because they don't affect the world politically. My general leaning is that the non-intervention is the best, simply because at this point, interventions tend to make things worse in the long run.

 

[Laurens]

The main thing I take into account here is the implication of force. I mean what stops you from going out and killing loads of people (ignoring your conscience for a moment), its the fact that you face retribution for it. Now when it comes to leaders, what reason do they feel that they have carte blanche to kill thousands? Its because they feel they have to answer to no one. They will face no retribution because they are the most powerful in the country. They do it because they think they can get away with it.

We have a situation in which people have gotten away with it in the past. So the example is there for others to see; there really is no one to answer to! This lack of retribution for war criminals etc. is only going to create more if you ask me. If there are serious consequences for genocide, people might lose their feeling like they can get away with it, and it may occur less frequently.

Look at what is happening in Syria; the government is slaughtering its own people, and fuck all is really being done about it. What message does that send out to other dictatorships in the region? That you can violently oppress an uprising and not really face retributions for it.

I think force works as a deterrent. Look at what Gadaffi did after the invasion of Iraq, he dismantled his WMD program. Would he have done so if he wasn't scared by what had transpired for Saddam Hussein?

 

[bluejatheist]

The main thing I take into account here is the implication of force. I mean what stops you from going out and killing loads of people (ignoring your conscience for a moment), its the fact that you face retribution for it. Now when it comes to leaders, what reason do they feel that they have carte blanche to kill thousands? Its because they feel they have to answer to no one. They will face no retribution because they are the most powerful in the country. They do it because they think they can get away with it.

We have a situation in which people have gotten away with it in the past. So the example is there for others to see; there really is no one to answer to! This lack of retribution for war criminals etc. is only going to create more if you ask me. If there are serious consequences for genocide, people might lose their feeling like they can get away with it, and it may occur less frequently.

Look at what is happening in Syria; the government is slaughtering its own people, and fuck all is really being done about it. What message does that send out to other dictatorships in the region? That you can violently oppress an uprising and not really face retributions for it.

I think force works as a deterrent. Look at what Gadaffi did after the invasion of Iraq, he dismantled his WMD program. Would he have done so if he wasn't scared by what had transpired for Saddam Hussein?

Such deterrence only goes so far. Also it's not always a conventional government responsible for genocides, but non-government groups, especially where government is dysfunctional. And overall, the source of the violence will remain while the threat might not always, you're only delaying violence. Like I said it really is a bandaid for the problem at best

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

It is an extremely difficult situation.

International business exploits these African countries, through bribery of governments, which encourages despotism, nepotism and its consequent corruption.

Western aid also exacerbates this situation - as books such as The Trouble With Aid and Aid And Other Dirty Business show.

Unless the international community can get its own house in order with an ethical approach to developing countries, such breakdowns in society, let alone the rule of law, will continue - ultimately leading to continuing fruitless "interventions" with further needless death and suffering of the powerless: "the bottom billion".

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Laurens]

I agree the world is extremely messed up in lots of places.

I guess I just find it difficult to be dispassionate about these things, inaction in the face of genocide etc. arouses my contempt and I feel strongly that something should at least be attempted to try and stop it whenever it occurs. I'm not an expert in international affairs and such, so my arguments will obviously have holes in them, but I try to stick to my principles as much as I can.

I would be curious to know if you guys agree with me in principle? I.e: that the international community should do all it can to prevent genocide, to bring war criminals to justice etc. I strongly believe that principle, but I understand that there are practical issues with interventionism. If you agree with the principle, but disagree with interventionism, what course of action do you think is best?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

UN action =
"YOU HAVE UNTIL I COUNT TO THREE, YOUNG MAN, OR I SWEAR I WILL GIVE YOU THE WORST TIME OUT OF YOUR LIFE!"

And then never goes through with it.

The UN is useless, simply because each country has it's own interests at heart.