UN makes US & Nato obsolete

[senheiser]

November 11th, 2013
08:34 AM ET

The changing role of U.N. forces?
By Global Public Square staff

Take a look at the video at the soldiers in the Congo. The blue helmets are of course a giveaway – they're part of the United Nations peacekeeping force. That's not exactly a terrifying group is it? After all, the U.N.'s peacekeepers have always been seen as a rather hapless, toothless bunch.

But this group is different. They are part of the U.N.'s new Intervention Force Brigade. Unlike the rest of the blue helmets, who are only allowed to act in self-defense, as peacekeepers, these soldiers are on the offense, with the authorization to hunt and attack enemy forces.

This is a first, a historic change for the U.N., and a new strategy in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where more than five million people have died since 1998 amidst a complex civil war. Over the last 18 months, government troops have been fighting a rebel group called the M-23. The rebels were encroaching deeper into the country, and had already taken over the city of Goma. Meanwhile, the U.N.'s peacekeepers were powerless to intervene – they had no mandate to engage.

All that changed in March, when the United Nations gave a 3,000 strong force the green light to attack. The balance of the fight shifted, and this week, the rebels surrendered. Could this be a broader turning point? Could the success in Congo be replicated elsewhere? What effect would U.N. peacekeepers have in Syria, for example?

Well, it's not as simple as it sounds.

Consider the makeup of these peacekeeping forces, for a start. As of September, there were a total of 97,000 U.N. troops, police, and military experts. It's not a permanent force; the personnel are actually loaned from various nations. South Asian countries are the top providers, Pakistan and Bangladesh, with about 8,000 each, followed by India, Ethiopia, and Nigeria.

In return, the United Nations gives these nations a standard rate of $1,028 per soldier, per month. For many developing countries, including India, this is several times more than a soldier actually gets paid by the government. So, if you're a poor country, contributing troops to the U.N. is actually good business.

Now look at the other side of the ledger. According to the United Nations, the total peacekeeping budget comes to $7.5 billion. More than a quarter of that is funded by American taxpayers. That's more than the next three top contributors, combined – Japan, France, and Germany. China and Russia are in 6th and 8th places respectively.

Each of these funders has its own agenda. So, for example, if the U.N. were to propose an aggressive role in Syria, China and certainly Russia would likely oppose. Or take another example. U.N. peacekeeping forces could never police parts of Kashmir, the volatile area contested by India and Pakistan. Among other problems, a substantial number of troops are of course actually South Asian.

It's a reminder that everything at the U.N. has to be sanctioned by its member states, and the U.N. cannot act without the political will, resources, and mandate from these countries. And their national interests will often trump any broader international interest.

A 2005 study by the RAND Corporation compared major nation-building operations that were led by the United States with those led by the United Nations. Of the eight American-led missions, only four could be considered a success – Germany, Japan, Bosnia, and Kosovo – while there were four failures, including of course Iraq and Afghanistan.

The United Nations actually had a better track record, seven of its eight missions brought peace. Of course the U.N. tends to get into a situation when the major powers have already reached some kind of agreement; still it's worth giving some credit to these troops, and hoping that they succeed in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where they now are.


Post by:CNN's Jason Miks
Topics: United Nations 
[url="http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/11/the-changing-role-of-u-n-forces/"]The changing role of U.N. forces? – Global Public Square - CNN.com Blogs[/URL] 
video in the link

 

[gambit]

Of course the U.N. tends to get into a situation when the major powers have already reached some kind of agreement;...

That is a pathetic concession to the major powers by the inefficient, inept, and corrupt UN.

Let us put it in a more clear perspective: Wherever the UN was successful, it came only because of the efforts by the major powers to resolve the dispute in a way that would be safe for the UN to operate in and to claim credit.

 

[jhungary]

November 11th, 2013
08:34 AM ET

The changing role of U.N. forces?
By Global Public Square staff

Take a look at the video at the soldiers in the Congo. The blue helmets are of course a giveaway – they're part of the United Nations peacekeeping force. That's not exactly a terrifying group is it? After all, the U.N.'s peacekeepers have always been seen as a rather hapless, toothless bunch.

But this group is different. They are part of the U.N.'s new Intervention Force Brigade. Unlike the rest of the blue helmets, who are only allowed to act in self-defense, as peacekeepers, these soldiers are on the offense, with the authorization to hunt and attack enemy forces.

This is a first, a historic change for the U.N., and a new strategy in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where more than five million people have died since 1998 amidst a complex civil war. Over the last 18 months, government troops have been fighting a rebel group called the M-23. The rebels were encroaching deeper into the country, and had already taken over the city of Goma. Meanwhile, the U.N.'s peacekeepers were powerless to intervene – they had no mandate to engage.

All that changed in March, when the United Nations gave a 3,000 strong force the green light to attack. The balance of the fight shifted, and this week, the rebels surrendered. Could this be a broader turning point? Could the success in Congo be replicated elsewhere? What effect would U.N. peacekeepers have in Syria, for example?

Well, it's not as simple as it sounds.

Consider the makeup of these peacekeeping forces, for a start. As of September, there were a total of 97,000 U.N. troops, police, and military experts. It's not a permanent force; the personnel are actually loaned from various nations. South Asian countries are the top providers, Pakistan and Bangladesh, with about 8,000 each, followed by India, Ethiopia, and Nigeria.

In return, the United Nations gives these nations a standard rate of $1,028 per soldier, per month. For many developing countries, including India, this is several times more than a soldier actually gets paid by the government. So, if you're a poor country, contributing troops to the U.N. is actually good business.

Now look at the other side of the ledger. According to the United Nations, the total peacekeeping budget comes to $7.5 billion. More than a quarter of that is funded by American taxpayers. That's more than the next three top contributors, combined – Japan, France, and Germany. China and Russia are in 6th and 8th places respectively.

Each of these funders has its own agenda. So, for example, if the U.N. were to propose an aggressive role in Syria, China and certainly Russia would likely oppose. Or take another example. U.N. peacekeeping forces could never police parts of Kashmir, the volatile area contested by India and Pakistan. Among other problems, a substantial number of troops are of course actually South Asian.

It's a reminder that everything at the U.N. has to be sanctioned by its member states, and the U.N. cannot act without the political will, resources, and mandate from these countries. And their national interests will often trump any broader international interest.

A 2005 study by the RAND Corporation compared major nation-building operations that were led by the United States with those led by the United Nations. Of the eight American-led missions, only four could be considered a success – Germany, Japan, Bosnia, and Kosovo – while there were four failures, including of course Iraq and Afghanistan.

I don't know where this guy gets the information to write this article, but the info they got in regarded to UN is wrong

Indeed it is the peacekeeping mission that was famous by the UN, but since it chartered, UN have another mission in mind, that was an active deterrent of conflict, PEACEMAKING mission

The history of peacemaking instead of peacekeeping started after the WW2 when the organisation were just established. The aim behind that was maintain peace by taking a more proactive stance, ie making them

This work when there are no active feaceful situation can be salvage, in other word, no peace can be kept.

The very first peacemaking mission operated by UN is during the Korean War in 1950, since then there are more or less 10 peacemaking mission including the Suez Canal crisis and the UN anti pirate mission in Somalia.

This is another side of UN people generally never heard of

United Nations Department of Political Affairs - Peacemaking and Conflict Prevention

By the way Bosnia and Serbia is an UN mission, so does the operation in Afghanistan and the NMT-I in Iraq

 

[rott]

November 11th, 2013
08:34 AM ET

The changing role of U.N. forces?
By Global Public Square staff

Take a look at the video at the soldiers in the Congo. The blue helmets are of course a giveaway – they're part of the United Nations peacekeeping force. That's not exactly a terrifying group is it? After all, the U.N.'s peacekeepers have always been seen as a rather hapless, toothless bunch.

But this group is different. They are part of the U.N.'s new Intervention Force Brigade. Unlike the rest of the blue helmets, who are only allowed to act in self-defense, as peacekeepers, these soldiers are on the offense, with the authorization to hunt and attack enemy forces.

This is a first, a historic change for the U.N., and a new strategy in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where more than five million people have died since 1998 amidst a complex civil war. Over the last 18 months, government troops have been fighting a rebel group called the M-23. The rebels were encroaching deeper into the country, and had already taken over the city of Goma. Meanwhile, the U.N.'s peacekeepers were powerless to intervene – they had no mandate to engage.

All that changed in March, when the United Nations gave a 3,000 strong force the green light to attack. The balance of the fight shifted, and this week, the rebels surrendered. Could this be a broader turning point? Could the success in Congo be replicated elsewhere? What effect would U.N. peacekeepers have in Syria, for example?

Well, it's not as simple as it sounds.

Consider the makeup of these peacekeeping forces, for a start. As of September, there were a total of 97,000 U.N. troops, police, and military experts. It's not a permanent force; the personnel are actually loaned from various nations. South Asian countries are the top providers, Pakistan and Bangladesh, with about 8,000 each, followed by India, Ethiopia, and Nigeria.

In return, the United Nations gives these nations a standard rate of $1,028 per soldier, per month. For many developing countries, including India, this is several times more than a soldier actually gets paid by the government. So, if you're a poor country, contributing troops to the U.N. is actually good business.

Now look at the other side of the ledger. According to the United Nations, the total peacekeeping budget comes to $7.5 billion. More than a quarter of that is funded by American taxpayers. That's more than the next three top contributors, combined – Japan, France, and Germany. China and Russia are in 6th and 8th places respectively.

Each of these funders has its own agenda. So, for example, if the U.N. were to propose an aggressive role in Syria, China and certainly Russia would likely oppose. Or take another example. U.N. peacekeeping forces could never police parts of Kashmir, the volatile area contested by India and Pakistan. Among other problems, a substantial number of troops are of course actually South Asian.

It's a reminder that everything at the U.N. has to be sanctioned by its member states, and the U.N. cannot act without the political will, resources, and mandate from these countries. And their national interests will often trump any broader international interest.

A 2005 study by the RAND Corporation compared major nation-building operations that were led by the United States with those led by the United Nations. Of the eight American-led missions, only four could be considered a success – Germany, Japan, Bosnia, and Kosovo – while there were four failures, including of course Iraq and Afghanistan.

The United Nations actually had a better track record, seven of its eight missions brought peace. Of course the U.N. tends to get into a situation when the major powers have already reached some kind of agreement; still it's worth giving some credit to these troops, and hoping that they succeed in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where they now are.


Post by:CNN's Jason Miks
Topics: United Nations 
The changing role of U.N. forces? – Global Public Square - CNN.com Blogs 
video in the link

The best news of today!!!