UN Deployments

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Glad_its_all_over, Jul 20, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. So it's more or less a given that the UN is incapable of deploying a military force with the ability to do anything much other than force protection, for all sorts of reasons, ranging from the relative worthlessness of the military contingents many nations assign to UN missions (for financial reasons), through an inability to deliver a unified and strategically sensible command structure with good political cover, to a fundamental lack of will in the UN to do anything much other than get rich.

    So it's also a given that there are a number of places in the world where a non-First World military force with robust rules of engagement and a decent capability could do a lot of good.

    What is the betting that, sooner or later, either the Chinese or a non-Western PMC will start to get involved in peacekeeping/-making operations?
  2. Watch the 'west' trip over itself to stop that from happening, especially if it is China. I think small-time attempts like the West African Union (if that is what it is called) are tolerated because they can be no worse than outright anarchy, so you may as well give them a go.
  3. ya mean like the thousands of Pakistani, Indian and Bangledeshi Troops doing peace keeping missions?
  4. I suggest reading the book "Shake hands with the devil" it is by the UN Force Commander in Rwanda. Real eye opener.

    The UN can ONLY work with what the member states of the Security Council (including the United Kingdom) give it.

    It is the Security Council that come up with the mandate (which dicates the ROE) and then it is up to the member states to provide the troops.

    Check out this site (the rankings of contributors of troops to UN missions: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/2006/june06_2.pdf

    UK - 31st
  5. I don't think I made my point particularly well.

    The history of military intervention by multinational forces under non-national and non-alliance mandates in anything other than observation and monitoring roles has been pretty damn ineffective.

    In order to make peace, a certain amount of both warfighting capability and will to prosecute operations are required. To date, that has come from First World military organisations, which, for good reasons, are probably unlikely to be able to do this very much in the future.

    So what is an effective 21st century MNF going to look like?

    My guess is Indian or Chinese or perhaps private.
  6. Irlsgt puts it so well.

    But lets not have reality get in the way of a good UN bashing.
  7. That warfighting capability for UN forces (eg for UNMIL in Liberia) is dependent on getting a mandate that allows it from the Security Council.
  8. Some really first-rate military forces have been deployed on UN missions - but had to stand back and watch murder, rape, ethnic cleansing and 'genocide'. Why? Because of their ROE and the UN mandate under which they operated.

    So let's all blame the UN. Hmmmmmmm?

    Who sets the UN mandate? Is it the UN themselves? No. It's the individual members of the UNSC, and in particular the permanent 5.

    So, if you've got a complaint about the ineffectiveness of the UN, then look specifically at the 'national' interests of US, UK, France, China and Russia.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. I understand how the mandates work and I certainly understand how the UNSC is meant to work, thanks.

    I haven't got a complaint beyond the general "why are we still pretending this sorry fiction works" - the UN is a machine for turning US dollars into Swiss bank accounts and provide paid employment for relatives of Third World dictators. The fact that it manages to be even marginally effective in some areas is a tribute to the few hugely decent and committed individuals who manage to squeeze some good out of it.