[Aeternos Astramora]

I vote for peacemakers. The logic is simple. Keeping the peace is basically trying to act like a buffer between two people who hate each other. It can prevent people from attacking each other. However, as soon as the intimidation by the UN becomes inadequate, tensions boil over and violence occurs. Once there is violence, there is no peace to keep, rendering all peacekeeping missions void. Peacemakers, on the other hand, wouldn't back down when violence occurred. They would take a proactive military role in whatever way they could rather than the diplomatic role, which consists of, "Violence is bad, mmkay."

Peacekeepers: Good start.
Peacemakers: Better than peacekeepers.

Edit: Yes, I know, "Peacekeeps" should be "Peacekeepers". If a mod could change that, it would be much appreciated.

This post has been edited by Aeternos Astramora: 04 February 2009 - 08:52 PM

[Sunake]

The UN is a piece of !@#$ that fell off the back end paraplegic dachshund. A UN "peacekeeper" is better described as a "target."

[Foggers]

Sunake, on Feb 5 2009, 02:52 AM, said:

The UN is a piece of !@#$ that fell off the back end paraplegic dachshund. A UN "peacekeeper" is better described as a "target."

I couldn't put it better than myself. Unlike Mr Brady though I won't even try.

[anenu]

Sadly while i think that the UN should have the power and responsibility to bring peace they have neither. In truth the UN is a joke they have no real international power and is seldom more than a tool nations leaders use.


To clarify i do wish that the UN was a real force in the word and that they could stop wars and help end genocides. Also i think a world wide policing force should exist but thats a different subject.

[Tritonia]

Aeternos Astramora, on Feb 4 2009, 09:50 PM, said:

Keeping the peace is basically trying to act like a buffer between two people who hate each other.

The tactic is called Third-party Nonviolent Intervention. By placing nonpartisans in a neutral diplomatic position, both sides can be more confident that their concerns are being addressed and not dismissed out of hand.

The argument over whether we can truely call the hypothetical UN taskforce "nonpartisan" is certainly evidence of a problem right off the bat.

Quote

It can prevent people from attacking each other.

It's designed to facilitate conflict resolution so that people no longer feel that they need to resort to violence to get what they want. Trying to stop them from attacking someone they want to attack is pretty much an exercise in futility. Solving the problem is the best way to eliminate the violence.

Quote

However, as soon as the intimidation by the UN becomes inadequate, tensions boil over and violence occurs.

Intimidation is non-physical violence. If there is any threat that the "peacekeepers" will harm anyone or exhibit signs of favoritism, their stabilizing influence rapidly deteriorates. Anyone who would break the peace cannot be looked to to maintain or establish it.

Thus, if this is actually their approach, it of course has a very predictable outcome- failure.

Quote

Once there is violence, there is no peace to keep, rendering all peacekeeping missions void.

This demonstrates the incredible double standard people place on nonviolence versus violence. Essentially the claim is that if there is even one case where nonviolence slips up and results in a violent physical confrontation, the whole nonviolent campaign has either failed or is incapable of succeeding. This is then used as justification to instigate more violence.

The majority of the world prefers to give violence a thousand chances for every one they give to peace; they don't consider that there may have been a problem with their nonviolent strategy (or fail to understand the difference between non-physical and nonviolent). I'm sure we're all familiar with the thought of, "You may have won the battle, but you haven't won the war." If a military commander loses a battle, they don't automatically assume their soldiers are incapable of winning. They assume their tactics, organization, and supplies were inadequate for the situation. Nonviolence also requires tactics, organization, and supplies, but there are much fewer people who are competent and successful at implementing them.

Quote

Peacemakers, on the other hand, wouldn't back down when violence occurred. They would take a proactive military role in whatever way they could rather than the diplomatic role, which consists of, "Violence is bad, mmkay."

"Peacemakers" on the other hand are not interested in establishing peace. They're interested in stopping physical violence, which is not the same thing. "Violence is bad, mmkay," is an unfair representation of nonviolent strategy.

[King Tom]

U.N. = joke. Sad but true

[Kenadian_2006]

Peace makers. It would work astonishingly well when backed by the most powerful militaries in the world (especially those that are most powerful pound for pound), aka NATO.

Also, for an example of UN peacekeeping doing the job it's supposed to do, look up Battle of the Medak Pocket.

This post has been edited by Kenadian_2006: 04 February 2009 - 10:30 PM

[Chelabrin]

anenu, on Feb 5 2009, 12:57 PM, said:

To clarify i do wish that the UN was a real force in the word and that they could stop wars and help end genocides. Also i think a world wide policing force should exist but thats a different subject.

Ditto

[Ethan Smith]

We built the UN too weak to do anything. If we want a powerful UN, we should give it a stronger military force and the ability to use force, expand the Security Council (to include Germany, Brazil, and India), and have Security Council actions go by vote instead of veto.

[King Tom]

Ethan Smith, on Feb 4 2009, 08:38 PM, said:

We built the UN too weak to do anything. If we want a powerful UN, we should give it a stronger military force and the ability to use force, expand the Security Council (to include Germany, Brazil, and India), and have Security Council actions go by vote instead of veto.

Adding new nations would help.

But the nations that have veto power will never give it up.

[edikroma]

Why is the UN weak? Because it historically, it has been run by the US and Russia. Every time anything came up that the US didn't like, such as sanctions against Israel, etc, it would veto. Russia would do the same thing if anything came up against its interest. Same goes for the other veto powers. The UN is basically reduced to a group of whiny brats, too weak to stand up and be heard when it is necessary.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

I like the UN as is - toothless and easily ignored, but not easily replaced with something actually capable of credible military action. The minute it got into the peacemaking business it would lose the few military commitments it already has.

[Aeternos Astramora]

I would have to say that I'm pleasantly surprised by the results so far.

What should the United Nations forces be?
Peacekeepers [ 3 ] ** [15.00%]
Peacemakers [ 13 ] ** [65.00%]
UN should never put peacekeepers/peacemakers anywhere. [ 4 ] ** [20.00%]

[Chelabrin]

what about broadening the OP, by asking for people's opinions of a reformed UN. Should the power of veto be dismissed? Which nations deserve a place on the Security Council and which don't, and why? What is the major barrier to a major reform of the United Nations in order that 21st Century foreign affairs realities be recognised?

Let's be honest and admit that the UN as it stands today, is the same as it was when created in 1946. Power shifts in a globalised international environment. Time that was recognised, in my view, and other contributions than those from 1946 be heard and paid heed.

[Kzin]

The application of U.N. force should only occur when two warring factions have grown so tired of their conflict that they *both* desire a 3rd party to come in and separate them for a cooling-off period of negotiation and, ideally, disarmament.

The blue helmets should never be applying force to choose a winner in a civil war. That's outside the powers of the U.N. for very good reasons, by design. Anything else would be an unacceptable infringement on the sovereignty of a state.

[Czar Garrett]

Well, the UN doesn't have awesome ships and their members don't tend to suffer delusions in the heat, so they're not Peacekeepers


They aren't capable of looking cool on a cowboy's belt, so they're not Peacemakers.






The UN is an impotent, useless organization who's mandate has long since been violated and ignored. It is a complete waste of time and money for all countries involved.

[El Pilchinator]

Kzin, on Feb 5 2009, 10:04 AM, said:

The application of U.N. force should only occur when two warring factions have grown so tired of their conflict that they *both* desire a 3rd party to come in and separate them for a cooling-off period of negotiation and, ideally, disarmament.

The blue helmets should never be applying force to choose a winner in a civil war. That's outside the powers of the U.N. for very good reasons, by design. Anything else would be an unacceptable infringement on the sovereignty of a state.

you phrased what i was gonna say, but much more clearly.

[Aeternos Astramora]

I think either the military wing of the United Nations needs to be totally overhauled or thrown out. The only thing the UN is good for is for aiding countries, but outside of that, they're impotent. The UN needs to become more like NATO, proactive in its stances.

This post has been edited by Aeternos Astramora: 05 February 2009 - 11:27 AM

[Kenadian_2006]

Aeternos Astramora, on Feb 5 2009, 12:26 PM, said:

I think either the military wing of the United Nations needs to be totally overhauled or thrown out. The only thing the UN is good for is for aiding countries, but outside of that, they're impotent. The UN needs to become more like NATO, proactive in its stances.

It's stance is to serve as a forum for the member nations and to resolve disputes between them and keep peace. Becoming ANYTHING like NATO betrays the very things it was founded on. It is a diplomatic institution formed out of the ashes of WW2, meant to prevent WW3. It's succeeded in that. It is not to be anything like a military alliance.

This post has been edited by Kenadian_2006: 05 February 2009 - 11:34 AM

[Kzin]

Aeternos Astramora, on Feb 5 2009, 09:26 AM, said:

I think either the military wing of the United Nations needs to be totally overhauled or thrown out. The only thing the UN is good for is for aiding countries, but outside of that, they're impotent. The UN needs to become more like NATO, proactive in its stances.

NATO is a collective defense military alliance, its purposes have nothing in common with the purposes of the U.N. .... you might as well say the U.N. should become more like the X-Men.