Useless UN

[Officer of Engineers]

Two tyrannys and three somewhat free countries that have to bribe each other just to keep from walking out on negotiations.

One tyranny. Russia is officially a demorcacy. And both the US and UK are not above the horse trading. Mayhaps you forget the debt relief bribes offerred to Mexico for their vote in the UNSC?

Isn't this supporting my argument that there has to be a better way to set policy?

Maybe there is. Maybe there isn't. However, a maybe is not helping anyone right now who desperately needs that help. The UN, however, bad it is is the only hope for those people. Kill the UN and you kill their last hope. Note Astralis's list. Even Canada, once the world's largest Peacekeeping force, is so sick of it that it's no longer on the list. Would the US or any other nation groups be willing to look at every murderous dispute in the world? Quite simply, no one else is going to do the job. The UN is it.

You're right, the UN is very unequal, but scum still has a say in what happens.

And then, they get ignored by those who do the deciding. The P5 decides and no one else. Even mighty China could not stand in the way of KFOR; not when Russia backed it. The best anyone else can do is offer "moral" authority; the very authority the US was seeking when it knew damned well of the French veto.

I agree, and I have no doubt we can do better for them than the UN in it's current form.

Here's the rub. No one wants to.

Because if nothing had changed in a decade, nothing was going to change in 8 weeks...

3 extra US divisions (4ID moving back into position from Turkey; 1CAV and 1ID would have been deployed), an extra flag (Canada's) and an extra brigade (the 2nd Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group). Should have waited.

[Parihaka]

parihaka,

you are certainly right in that i have a somewhat fatalistic view of the UN. it can be cleaned up- to some degree. it can be reformed- to some degree. however, the basis of its troubles is really quite hard to solve, because it is fundamentally a contradiction: the UN is an organization whose ideals are that of liberalism, but whose member states are profoundly moved by the dictates of realism.

what you advocate is for these member states to make their judgments based upon liberalist thought, or at least include more of it in their diplomacy. this would somewhat solve the contradiction (but not fully so, as i doubt any nation will ever put liberalist thought at the pinnacle of foreign policy decisionmaking), however, this would have a few effects.

Edit to add: I do not automatically equate morality with Liberalism ;)

one effect of this would be to cut down greatly upon the number of states that would be allowed entrance into the UN. look at the top ten contributors of troops to the UN in 2006, for instance:

-pakistan
-bangladesh
-india
-nigeria
-ghana
-nepal
-jordan
-uruguay
-ethiopia
-kenya

not exactly the biggest collection of free (or for that matter, moral) countries in the world. you see the problem, now?

As regards your list of countries, I would say that the very fact that they are large donors to the United Nations in the form of peacekeepers speaks to their good intentions and would weigh in their favour in any 'judgment'.

in reforming the UN, one of the biggest clashes is this one between morality/freedom and sovereignty. we can remove or weaken the principle of the latter for the principle of the former. however, in doing so, we would most likely alienate many countries whose moralities/beliefs are different (if not outright antiethical) to our own.

That is my premise, yes

so, we come back to the main problem once more. if the "cure" is so strong- and is only partially likely to work- that it kills the patient, what is one to do? the best is to reform what we can, knowing full well that until the world completely shifts onto a new paradigm of international relations (not likely), this is the best we can do. incremental and small reforms. a disappointing result, yes, but better than the alternative of scrapping it altogether.

Change management is always a slow process, but if one of those 'incremental and small reforms' is the exclusion to observer status of rogue nations then that's fine by me.

[Parihaka]

Wheeee! This may be my longest quote post!
...

Nah mate, I've seen you do longer

[Confed999]

One tyranny. Russia is officially a demorcacy.

Russia is rated as "semi-free". In my book Russia is a tyranny.

And both the US and UK are not above the horse trading. Mayhaps you forget the debt relief bribes offerred to Mexico for their vote in the UNSC?

I included the entire UNSC, and implied the entire UN, in my statement.

OHowever, a maybe is not helping anyone right now who desperately needs that help. The UN, however, bad it is is the only hope for those people. Kill the UN and you kill their last hope.

Again, I am not for scrapping the UN in favor of nothing.

Quite simply, no one else is going to do the job. The UN is it.

Then quite simply, we're ****ed...

Here's the rub. No one wants to.

A few of us here do, it is apparent from the posts. We just need to convince more people that the UN is not the answer, at least in it's current form.

Should have waited.

I was talking about the UN. None of the changes you listed would have been decided by the UN.

[Officer of Engineers]

Then quite simply, we're ****ed...

Generals MacKenzie, Jetley, Cott, and Rose proved we're not. I would only include General Dallaire for his fortitude but his military capabilities were not what w'veas needed at that moment.

I was talking about the UN. None of the changes you listed would have been decided by the UN.

In a way it would be. The way Canada was going to be shamed into action was that the UK had adopted the Canadian Compromise (Saddam had 30 days to prove that he had complied with the UNSC Resolutions or automatic force). The Brits shortened it to 14 days. The Brits were prepared to state that even if the UNSC did not adopt this plan; they will give peace one last chance. After that, there was no way Canada was going to back out. The Brits were never given a chance to shame Ottawa into action.

And if Canada came in ... as much as I don't believe we have that big of a voice, it might have shamed others into acting

Would've, could've, should've.

[Confed999]

Generals MacKenzie, Jetley, Cott, and Rose proved we're not. I would only include General Dallaire for his fortitude but his military capabilities were not what w'veas needed at that moment.

That covers a couple of the world's hot spots, what about the rest? If all we get to have is the UN's decision as to what is worthy of intervention, then we are truly ****ed, because it only takes one psycho to ruin things for everyone else.

In a way it would be.

Only in that the UN was mentioned. No change would have taken place within the UN, that was a deal between friends...

[Officer of Engineers]

That covers a couple of the world's hot spots, what about the rest? If all we get to have is the UN's decision as to what is worthy of intervention, then we are truly ****ed, because it only takes one psycho to ruin things for everyone else.

That would not change with or without the UN. The African Union have troops in Dufar right now but without the inspired leadership of even the flawed General Dallaire. Just because the UN decides what intervention is desirable does not mean that it will succeed. UN failures are notoriously widespread and even its successes are extremely limited. General MacKenzie kept Sarajevo alive. General Dallaire watched 800,000 people butchered. Neither stopped the wars.

As I stated before, both the AU and UNPROFOR troops had similar ROEs. We can only engage the enemy in self defence. Well, we stood in between the thugs and the civilians. The AU troops stood out of the way.

There's only so many good generals to go around.

And one pyscho is not going to ruin things. It's the willingness of the P5 to act or even the willingness of the P5 to allow others to act.

[Confed999]

That would not change with or without the UN.

I'd like to see something else tried before I would decide that.

We can only engage the enemy in self defence.

Good place for a change right there.

And one pyscho is not going to ruin things.

Hitler? OBL? Look at all we lost...

The real honest to goodness reason I don't like the UN is that I don't think they'll even care to try to help when I/we need them someday...

[Officer of Engineers]

I'd like to see something else tried before I would decide that.

As I pointed out, there ain't enough of us to go around now. That's not going to change regardless of what organization is in charge. General MacKenzie could not have been in Yugoslavia as well as Rwanda at the same time.

Good place for a change right there.

Good people will always find ways to do the right thing. We did. Bad people will use whatever excuse/rules to stay away. We Canadians took the fight to the thugs. The Nigerian Contingent in UNPROFOR stayed in the barracks.

Hitler? OBL? Look at all we lost...

They never had access to the UN.

The real honest to goodness reason I don't like the UN is that I don't think they'll even care to try to help when I/we need them someday...

I pray we never need them because that mean we screwed up being responsible for ourselves.

[Confed999]

As I pointed out, there ain't enough of us to go around now.

Then I must not know what you mean. How many decent ones are there in the combined "free nations" of the world? People that could get the job done, the destruction of the enemy, with the appropriate orders and support.

find ways to do the right thing.

Part of my point, they shouldn't have to "find" the way.

They never had access to the UN.

My point was about 1 psycho ruining things. There are 2 that messed up alot. I'm sure you could extend the list, in that context, by 100 more names easily. To take it in the direction you went, the UN did have access to OBL, and terrorist oganizations in general.

I pray we never need them because that mean we screwed up being responsible for ourselves.

One mistake, with one psycho in the right place to take advantage, and no ammount of responsibility will stop it. In both our systems of government, changes can come overnight, changes far beyond our control. I can see it now, and I do realize what could happen, and how easy it would be to do. With the right rhetoric, we may even be fool enough to agree to it...

[Officer of Engineers]

Then I must not know what you mean. How many decent ones are there in the combined "free nations" of the world? People that could get the job done, the destruction of the enemy, with the appropriate orders and support.

But are they willing? Let's even use a "right" war, Afghanistan. Three countries are supposed to provide a reduced division to Khandahar. Only the Canadians showed up on time and while talks of the Brits and Dutch not showing up maybe premature, both are extremely late.

Part of my point, they shouldn't have to "find" the way.

We always have to find a way. Did you ever imagine a US soldier shooting a pregnant teenage mother with a baby on her back just to keep the peace? I sure as hell did not before Rwanda. You're just changing the rules; not the situation and we will always have to find a way to deal with the situation no matter what rules are in place.

My point was about 1 psycho ruining things. There are 2 that messed up alot. I'm sure you could extend the list, in that context, by 100 more names easily. To take it in the direction you went, the UN did have access to OBL, and terrorist oganizations in general.

I certainly do not want the UN to dictate my national defence policies. The US certainly didn't; having targetted his camp with a missile barrage before 11 Sept.

One mistake, with one psycho in the right place to take advantage, and no ammount of responsibility will stop it. In both our systems of government, changes can come overnight, changes far beyond our control. I can see it now, and I do realize what could happen, and how easy it would be to do. With the right rhetoric, we may even be fool enough to agree to it...

Then it's our fault.

[Confed999]

Three countries are supposed to provide a reduced division

Another good place for a change. The UN, or whatever, sends 3 reduced divisions already committed to it's force. Learned that method from the Confederates. ;)

just to keep the peace

Shouldn't be there just to keep the peace. Pick a side, or make your own side.

I certainly do not want the UN to dictate my national defence policies.

Taking out the tyrants supporting terrorism, and bombing/invading terrorist camps, is no more dictating your defence than is applying economic sanctions to Iran.

Then it's our fault.

Even if it is 100% our fault, do we not still deserve the chance to get back up?

[Officer of Engineers]

Another good place for a change. The UN, or whatever, sends 3 reduced divisions already committed to it's force. Learned that method from the Confederates. ;)

It's a NATO problem, not a UN problem. The UN is not allowed to dictate the ROEs in Afghanistan. The committement has been made but thus far, only Canada has sent its brigade. The British 16 AAR is supposed to flushed out in June and I don't know when the Dutch Battle Group is showing up.

Shouldn't be there just to keep the peace. Pick a side, or make your own side.

Keeping the peace to us soldiers means to stop the killings. And at times, that means shooting both sides. Doesn't change the fact that we still have to find ways around whatever rules there are.

Taking out the tyrants supporting terrorism, and bombing/invading terrorist camps, is no more dictating your defence than is applying economic sanctions to Iran.

But WE do that. Not the UN telling us what to do or what not to do.

Even if it is 100% our fault, do we not still deserve the chance to get back up?

The world is not a nice place. We work with what we got. Not what we want to have. We have the UN basically to take care of the dirty little business that we don't want to take care of. Dufar is a mess that we don't want no matter what the news media say.

[Confed999]

It's a NATO problem, not a UN problem. The UN is not allowed to dictate the ROEs in Afghanistan.

That's why it would be a change.

Keeping the peace to us soldiers means to stop the killings.

I simply do not believe in "peacekeeping". It is generally only a delay in the fighting.

But WE do that.

We shouldn't have to do it alone. And we certainly shouldn't be accused by the UN administration of commiting illegal acts for doing it.

The world is not a nice place. We work with what we got. Not what we want to have. We have the UN basically to take care of the dirty little business that we don't want to take care of. Dufar is a mess that we don't want no matter what the news media say.

I'm sorry Sir, I just can't commit to the UN being as good as it gets.

[Officer of Engineers]

That's why it would be a change.

I/SFOR and KFOR are NATO operations. Alabania was a EUROFORCE operation. East Timor was started as a green beret, not blue, operation. All of these, the UN was not allowed to dictate the ROEs.

I simply do not believe in "peacekeeping". It is generally only a delay in the fighting.

It's a matter of perspective. I control what I can control and I ignore what I cannot. Keeping the peace to me means clearing my AO of any and all oppositions. I accomplish this by either negotiation or through a force of arms or even a show of force but I will clear out my AO and my AO alone. If the bad guy's HQ is in my AO, he will have to either move out or be destroyed. If he moves out, however, I am not going to charge after him.

We shouldn't have to do it alone. And we certainly shouldn't be accused by the UN administration of commiting illegal acts for doing it.

We don't do it alone. The US always had help; even if it's not all they help she wants and I do not remember one incidence where we didn't received the US's help.

So what is the UN going to do? Sue us? You've got a guy on this board who accused my people and my boss of rape? Do we care?

I'm sorry Sir, I just can't commit to the UN being as good as it gets.

It's as good as it gets because that's all we allow it to be. As I stated, alot of good people have done good under the UN name. That should not be ignored ... just as its flaws should not be ignored.

We've got good examples on how to do the UN job. Let the UN decide on the Resolutions and let a Lead Nation to carry out those Resolutions under its own Flag; not the UN's.