Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Peacekeeping extinct?

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

  • Is Peacekeeping extinct?

    While I do not have the quote, i was reading somewhere that "peacekeeping" was a word used during the cold war, to send in forces to stop a regional conflict from escalating into a larger scaled conflict.

    Now that the Cold War is over, is the role of Peacekeeping gone? Before if Greece and Turkey decided to beat each other up then the UN would step in with peacekeepers and stop the conflict from dragging NATO and the soviets into the conflict.

    However today, seeing as the threat of Soviet Russia is gone, who really cares if Greece and Turkey decide to fight each other? Is there really a role for peacekeeping?

  • #2
    No. We're (NZ) currently deployed in Afghanistan, Solomon Islands and East Timor doing just that.
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

    Leibniz

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by parihaka
      No. We're (NZ) currently deployed in Afghanistan, Solomon Islands and East Timor doing just that.

      but really, if you were not there, what would happen? would WW3 break out if you pulled out?

      Comment


      • #4
        There are currently two types of peacekeeping. One actual United Nations Blue Beret Operations that the West pretty well have abandonned but have been proudly taken up by South Asian countries.

        The other is Coalition Operations that may or may not have the blessings of the UN. Iraq and Afghanistan are currently those operations.

        Comment


        • #5
          As far as the civilians who live there are concerned, yes. Also, it's funny how if you leave something small to fester for long enough, it turns into something big. You might think that if Afghanistan had had an effective peacekeeping force susequent to the Russian withdrawl, what would the world be like today?
          In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

          Leibniz

          Comment


          • #6
            However today, seeing as the threat of Soviet Russia is gone, who really cares if Greece and Turkey decide to fight each other? Is there really a role for peacekeeping?
            Shipping lanes, business investments... it is a small world and blips can effect us all...

            You might think that if Afghanistan had had an effective peacekeeping force susequent to the Russian withdrawl, what would the world be like today?
            What woudl they have done? There was no peace to keep. With the withdrawl of the USSR heavily armed and hopped up Afghani factions were staring at each other turning the jihad into a civil war.

            That's more peacemaking...
            To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by parihaka
              As far as the civilians who live there are concerned, yes. Also, it's funny how if you leave something small to fester for long enough, it turns into something big. You might think that if Afghanistan had had an effective peacekeeping force susequent to the Russian withdrawl, what would the world be like today?
              Peacekeepers would have returned home in pieces from that God Forsaken country.
              "Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by sparten
                Peacekeepers would have returned home in pieces from that God Forsaken country.
                That's what everyone keeps saying but they're all over the place now like fleas on a dog. And I know, peacemaking, not peacekeeping, but with a shoot to kill proviso outside of the usual UN ********, they're effectively the same thing.
                In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                Leibniz

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by parihaka
                  As far as the civilians who live there are concerned, yes. Also, it's funny how if you leave something small to fester for long enough, it turns into something big. You might think that if Afghanistan had had an effective peacekeeping force susequent to the Russian withdrawl, what would the world be like today?
                  I agree with you on this. If there was some sort of force in Afghanistan after the Russians left, i dont that Al-Quaida would have set up shop in that country.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    That's what everyone keeps saying but they're all over the place now like fleas on a dog.
                    After fighting their way in with the help of a large faction. Sort of different then trying to seperate the sides and make them work out an argeement and of course all the red tape.
                    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by troung
                      After fighting their way in with the help of a large faction. Sort of different then trying to seperate the sides and make them work out an argeement and of course all the red tape.
                      I think we can both agree the liberal version of peacekeeping is dead. Peace comes from the barrel of a gun.
                      Last edited by Parihaka; 27 May 06,, 08:11.
                      In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                      Leibniz

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
                        There are currently two types of peacekeeping. One actual United Nations Blue Beret Operations that the West pretty well have abandonned but have been proudly taken up by South Asian countries..
                        Dont you think that the 1st type of peackeeping i.e under the UN is more affective as these forces dont fight but only try to keep the peace intact.
                        Sir i had a question what you think would it not be good to send only this type of peackeeping force instead of NATO? whom the people of that country where it has been deployed consider it a hostile force?

                        Seconldy why the West has abondoned the peacekeeping opertaions under UN ??



                        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
                        The other is Coalition Operations that may or may not have the blessings of the UN. Iraq and Afghanistan are currently those operations.
                        IS NATO can be called the peacekeeping force or is it a coalition of countries only safegaurding own intrestes??

                        can we call this peackeeping operations in Iraq n Afghanistan??

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Peacekeeping and Peace Enforcement are two different things and are covered in the UN charter.

                          With the demise of USSR, the USA has become the sole global superpower. When the cold war was there, most of the third world nations were divided into the two camps or were in "spheres of influence". Since any conflict would draw in these two superpowers into a one on one conflict, they always intervened to ensure that the conflagration did not go out of control and draw in the direct confrontation of the two superpowers which could result in their nuclear exchange.

                          Thus the Cold War did ensure that the world including the third world was under some sort of semblance of peace.

                          With the USSR having been removed from the scene, the non European world has become unstable in so far as confrontations are concerned, especially internal confrontations and in which in many non European nations, ethnic groups, and former nations seek autonomy or territorial reconciliation.

                          This instability creates problems in the world order. There are many ways how this instability causes problems in the world order and suffice it to say that Troung has mentioned some. Obviously, this affects most of the other countries and so intervention to bring stability becomes essential.

                          This intervention can be in two forms. Peacekeeping and Peace enforcement.

                          Since the UN is taken to be a benign organisation that was to maintain world peace and order in a civilised way, most UN interventions have been in the Peace Keeping role i.e. act as a buffer between the warring factions but not directly involve itself in war-fighting.

                          However, in this peacekeeping mode, many UN observers/ contingents have had to suffer casualties and also it was not effective and while the direct confrontation between rival factions was deescalated, still it did not bring a lasting solution.

                          Now that there is no second superpower and the virus of instability is becoming commonplace, it has become essential that a solution to rivalry is enforced and hence Peace Enforcement is the flavour of the moment i.e. direct confrontation where needed to bring an effective solution.

                          There is no doubt, as Jana has mentioned, that national interests play a role also in interventions. That is but natural.

                          Usually, the non western countries are involved in forming the peacekeeping or peace enforcement roles since it helps them to keep their armies fighting trim as also helps in the financial well being of the individual and the national economy since the UN forces are paid in dollars which are repatriated to the home countries.

                          In so far as Iraq and Afghanistan is concerned, it depends on your own perspective.
                          Last edited by Ray; 27 May 06,, 14:45.


                          "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                          I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                          HAKUNA MATATA

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Jana
                            Dont you think that the 1st type of peackeeping i.e under the UN is more affective as these forces dont fight but only try to keep the peace intact.
                            As the Brigadier said, it only works if the beligerants want peace and needs a referee to keep them apart since they don't trust each other but trust a 3rd neutral party.

                            Originally posted by Jana
                            Sir i had a question what you think would it not be good to send only this type of peackeeping force instead of NATO? whom the people of that country where it has been deployed consider it a hostile force?
                            Like the 23 dead Pakistani soldiers who died in Somalia while wearing the UN blue beret? And the UN did nothing about it just not to enflame the situation? Like Koffi Annan actually stopping General Dallaire from stopping the Rwandan Genocide?

                            Originally posted by Jana
                            Seconldy why the West has abondoned the peacekeeping opertaions under UN ??
                            Simply put, we got tired of the bleeding when no one else, especially the UN wants to stop the bleeding.

                            Originally posted by Jana
                            IS NATO can be called the peacekeeping force or is it a coalition of countries only safegaurding own intrestes??
                            Depends on which operation you speak of. In the Former Republics of Yugoslavia, the troops are there to stop rioting between people who hate each other more than combat operations.

                            In Afghanistan, we want to kill Taliban and Al Qeida or at suppress them to no end.

                            Originally posted by Jana
                            can we call this peackeeping operations in Iraq n Afghanistan??
                            They're technically called insurgencies but the goals in both cases is to introduce and to protect infrastrutures for a better life in both cases.

                            Originally posted by Ray
                            Usually, the non western countries are involved in forming the peacekeeping or peace enforcement roles since it helps them to keep their armies fighting trim as also helps in the financial well being of the individual and the national economy since the UN forces are paid in dollars which are repatriated to the home countries.
                            Sir, I was under the impression that each Indian soldier who goes on a UN tour gets all the money the UN pays for him which amounts to $2000US per soldier per UN tour the last time I checked.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
                              Sir, I was under the impression that each Indian soldier who goes on a UN tour gets all the money the UN pays for him which amounts to $2000US per soldier per UN tour the last time I checked.
                              That is right.

                              But finally the money comes to India!

                              So, it helps the national economy!
                              Last edited by Ray; 27 May 06,, 18:48.


                              "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                              I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                              HAKUNA MATATA

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X