Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Successful UN Missions?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Successful UN Missions?

    Not sure if this is the right section for this but the mods can move it if they need. Anyway, I need some help here. I'm in a "political discussion/debate" (well my wife is but I got dragged in) with someone who describes themselves as a neo-con. I thought I'd shut him up but then he came back with a load of questions and this is one that I would love some input on from those on the board that have way more knowledge/experience with UN missons. So here's what he asked:

    "Name me a single conflict that the UN has ever even come close to settling."

    No more than that - not even sure what he calls settled but I'm open to all points of view here.

    Thanks.
    There may be only one time in your life when your country will call upon you and you will be the only one who can do the nasty job that has to be done -- do it or forever after there will be the taste of ashes in your mouth.

  • #2
    Namibia/UNTAG?

    Comment


    • #3
      Congo (The UN Settled it in 1961-2 - not to everyones liking but it was settled), Cambodia, Bosnia- Herzegovina, Macedonia, East Timor, there is actually a whole pile - just a few off the top of my head. Gulf War 1 (under UN mandate and prob would have gone nowhere without it).

      Might I point out, it is not the UNs job to "settle" conflicts.... merely to settle peace.

      Comment


      • #4
        The Bosnia one is not an example I'd use after the whole Sbrenica (SP?) affair, don't want to give him ammunition is the reason.
        There may be only one time in your life when your country will call upon you and you will be the only one who can do the nasty job that has to be done -- do it or forever after there will be the taste of ashes in your mouth.

        Comment


        • #5
          Depending on your viewpoint, the UNIFIL mission was settled, in that the purpose
          of the mission was to provide a buffer zone between Israel and Lebanon, and was to be
          in place until such a time as Israel ceded the Lebanese territory they occupied in 1978.
          The Israelis moved back in 2001, at which point, UNIFIL forces moved up to the
          border. Am not 100% sure why there is still a presence there, in terms of the
          original mission statement...
          "Well, stone me! We've had cocaine, bribery and Arsenal scoring two goals at home. But just when you thought there were truly no surprises left in football, Vinnie Jones turns out to be an international player!" (Jimmy Greaves)!"

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Truck Driver View Post
            Depending on your viewpoint, the UNIFIL mission was settled, in that the purpose
            of the mission was to provide a buffer zone between Israel and Lebanon, and was to be
            in place until such a time as Israel ceded the Lebanese territory they occupied in 1978.
            The Israelis moved back in 2001, at which point, UNIFIL forces moved up to the
            border. Am not 100% sure why there is still a presence there, in terms of the
            original mission statement...
            The original UNIFIL is finished, settled etc.

            The current UNIFIL 2 is a seperate mission, different Mandate & objective, just happens to be in the same area.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Truck Driver View Post
              Depending on your viewpoint, the UNIFIL mission was settled, in that the purpose
              of the mission was to provide a buffer zone between Israel and Lebanon, and was to be
              in place until such a time as Israel ceded the Lebanese territory they occupied in 1978.
              The Israelis moved back in 2001, at which point, UNIFIL forces moved up to the
              border. Am not 100% sure why there is still a presence there, in terms of the
              original mission statement...
              The original UNIFIL is finished, settled etc.

              The current UNIFIL 2 is a separate mission, different Mandate & objective, just happens to be in the same area.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Truck Driver View Post
                Depending on your viewpoint, the UNIFIL mission was settled, in that the purpose
                of the mission was to provide a buffer zone between Israel and Lebanon, and was to be
                in place until such a time as Israel ceded the Lebanese territory they occupied in 1978.
                The Israelis moved back in 2001, at which point, UNIFIL forces moved up to the
                border. Am not 100% sure why there is still a presence there, in terms of the
                original mission statement...
                Sheeba Farms is still disputed.
                The worst sin toward our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them: that's the essence of inhumanity.
                (George Bernard Shaw, Playwright, 1856 - 1950)

                Comment


                • #9
                  First of all how do u define what is success in terms of UN missions. If u are talking about peace keeping /enforcement often the UN are tasked with impossible mandates, under resourced with troops drawn from third world countries. The original UNIFIL mnadate was never fulfilled : The Israelis never withdrew to where theY were supposed to and were backed by the permanent members of the security council( US). Not the fault of the troops on the ground they did their job as best they could .. In Sierra Leone the UN FORCE was over whelmed until the intervention of the British Army. Liberia was probably a success but the situation was well defined and troops had strong mandate however a lot of work has still to be done in Liberia to cement the gains of the early stafes. By the way the Irish troop contribution was well recognised . UNTAG AGAIN AN INTERIN FORCE AFTER A LOT OF POLITICAL discussions and concensus. When SWAPO broke the agreement by crossing over armed the UN rep ( Finish) had the guts to order out the SWA police who put an end to the incursion and retianed stability.
                  In attempting to define success one has also to look at the cost involved. The UN as an organization wheels out the work of peace keeping troops etc when its relevance is questioned often to justify the overstaffed , over paid bureaucracy who would usually not have anything to do with soldiers. As an organization the UN is a shambles , there are some very dedicated people there but a large amount spend their time , working out the best travel routes to gain expenses, do not rock the boat and are waiting for their pension. UN troops on the other hand are usually the best examples of what the UN could be. A graet book to read to get an overview, a bit dated now is Brian Uruhart ( spelling) "a life in Peace and War?

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X