How could the UN forces be more effective?

[Spiffor]

The UN would need clear missions and clear mandates. Where it goes, it should also stop being an absolute "neutral party", but be a fighting party with precise objectives (that local groups will hopefully agree upon).

To date, UN interventions require everybody around to agree with their action... And what I don't understand: In these circumstances, how can you stop a slaughter when the slaughterers want to continue ?

The relative success of non-UN peacemaking missions (like the EU one happening in DRCOngo at the moment) comes from the fact that these armed groups will use force to reach their objectives if needed.
In a UN intervention, objectives are less important than the compliance of the local groups. It sure is useless in a fighting environment then. UN people are only allowed to use force to defend themselves AFAIK.

However, in peaful environments, UN interventions can be quite efficient (aid distribution, policing to avoid anarchy, monitoring of the power transition etc.). We just don't hear much about these, since they are much less glitzy than war scenes.

[The Mad Monk]

Because Russia and China remembered to come to meetings?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
How come the UN force that went to Korea had teeth but every force after that has sucked?

It was the US army in disguise. The Soviets haven't opposed the UN going to Korea because they boycotted the UN at that time IIRC.

[The Mad Monk]

Here's an idea:

Throw out that officer who abandoned his men, and everyone like him.

The UN will look much smaller, but be much better.

[Spiffor]

TMM : That would require to replace the whole staff with real military types. So far, they are only bureaucrats. And for a reason: bureaucracy is required in UN missions

[Pekka]

Change the rules of engagement immidiately. Stop with the blue berreting circus act, and get on with the program. They should keep some UN values like reasoning. Let's talk first, and then blow the damn place up if no co-operation. Let's see if they want to co-operate in the next village.

STOP LETTING IN some of those very unsoldier like soldiers in international efforts, if you can't run 2 miles in 13 minutes, then you're out of here, get on a diet or change careers, or go to another field of soldiering. I'm sick of seeing grossly overweight guards wearing blue berrets anyway, smiling to all people when everyone is laughing at him/her. Time to change the attitude. It's STFU or get shot! with a smile. Why? Because it is the very attitude and lack of cojones that makes every single guerilla group, terrorist group etc laugh their butts off when they see blue berrets. They know they can't do crap. And they know most of them haven't even seen a real fight. So, we need to stop being such sissies in there, and it starts by the change of rules, and change of attitude!

I realize UN is not supposed to provide yet another army to the field to start things, but hey, where they are usually sent, it's not that kind of a party they equipped for.

And this was not aimed at UN soldiers. This was aimed at the crappy rules they have to play with.

[Pekka]

Let me tell you more reasons why I think this way.

UN operations are easily exploited by local militias and fighting sides. What it does, is that it gives them more time to regroup and arm themselves once again. They are surely not deterrent .. because of their rules!

I believe war should be as effective as possible. To limit casualties of all sides (own, civilians, enemies I don't mind). Now, we throw in another organisation known as the UN when fighting has calmed down. No one respects them though. Maybe some civies do, but other than that, fighting sides don't respect them and I don't see why they should. It's like sending missionaries to get on their knees before fighting starts and pray for all. Beautiful thought but it doesn't work.

So, to stop wars, I believe the solution is the same. Be effective. By getting in between and not being tough enough only results to wars that are burning slow, and those wars are the worst kind to everyone. So, that's why I believe that when we get in, have enough solid information, then we must close in and make the moves too. If someone is braking the what ever cease fire, then we shouldn't just point fingers and say 'bad puppy!'. We must be strong and hit back with everything we got and say next time someone brakes the rules there's going to be hell to pay.

It can sound little extreme, but I don't see the point of going there with flowers in hands and trying to reason with dudes that have been fighting forever and have grudges that just won't die by singing together around the campfire.

[Rogan Josh]

All it would take to be effective would be to have the support of the US, or at leadt be free from US opposition.

[Heresson]

I think that UN should be an organisation of democratic states only.

[Pekka]

Heresson, hmm.. that's an interesting thought..

[lightblue]

How about an UN army, paid for by the member states, independent from any member state? Irrealistic, but still.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Pekka
Heresson, hmm.. that's an interesting thought..

Why not? Why should some bloody despote be represented as if He was a representation of his people? How can we condemn China or Russia for what they're, and other naughty states, are doing, if they're in?

I have some some doubts if USA should be in in fact

[Proteus_MST]

The Problem is,
are there any democratic States in the World?
(aside from Switzerland of course )

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Spiffor
The UN would need clear missions and clear mandates. Where it goes, it should also stop being an absolute "neutral party", but be a fighting party with precise objectives (that local groups will hopefully agree upon).

To date, UN interventions require everybody around to agree with their action... And what I don't understand: In these circumstances, how can you stop a slaughter when the slaughterers want to continue ?

The relative success of non-UN peacemaking missions (like the EU one happening in DRCOngo at the moment) comes from the fact that these armed groups will use force to reach their objectives if needed.
In a UN intervention, objectives are less important than the compliance of the local groups. It sure is useless in a fighting environment then. UN people are only allowed to use force to defend themselves AFAIK.

However, in peaful environments, UN interventions can be quite efficient (aid distribution, policing to avoid anarchy, monitoring of the power transition etc.). We just don't hear much about these, since they are much less glitzy than war scenes.

I agree with that.
Having clear mandates and the Permission to use Force and of couse being adequately armed had probably prevented Situations like in the Bosnian war, where dutch UN-Soldiers stood around and their Commander drank tea with the Serbian commander while his Serbian Soldiers dragged muslim Civilians to their Death.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
The Problem is,
are there any democratic States in the World?
(aside from Switzerland of course )

Who said there were any?
he he he