- its swift and decisive action to halt Rwandan genocide
- its stolid defence of the Srebrenica safe haven
- its scrupulously upright management of the Oil-for-Food scheme
- its gallantry towards Congolese refugess under its protection
Nice photo. I think it's particularly significant in light of the fact that yesterday was the 23rd anniversary of this event.
An attack committed by the precursor to Hezbollah headed by Nasrallah.UPDATE 25 October 2006:
OK, I was harsh on the UN. Theo has promised to come by and correct me. In the meantime, let me get in another dig. There was a good joke going around when they were debating who would be the next General Secretary after Kofi Annan. Some wags proposed Tony Soprano:
He'd get more done and steal less!
But in the spirit of fairness I'll acknowledge that financial rectitude in Iraq hasn't exactly been improved that much since the occupation made Oil for Food redundant: Mother of all heists.
9 comments:
This is a good opportunity to pay tribute: in UN peacekeeping, more than 2,222 military and civilian personnel from 111 countries have died in the line of duty since 1948, including more than 120 peacekeepers in 2005.
The UN can hardly be better than its member-states, and lessons have to be learned. But at least the UN is an institution where lessons are taken seriously, unlike some of the more important member-states. For an alternative point of view:
http://www.una.org.uk/about.html
Have a great day, :-)
Olaf
Dag Hammerskjold: The UN was not created in order to bring us to heaven, but in order to save us from hell.
Don't get me wrong. I've got the highest respect for peacekeepers and the job, often quite dangerous, which they do. I think about this guy, for instance, a Canadian officer killed by Israeli shelling in the recent Lebanon War:
Major Paeta Derek Hess-von Kruedener, a member of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. He had previously served in Cyprus, Bosnia and Congo before serving in UNTSO from October 2005.
I didn't know him unfortunately. You've probably read the stories about it. This is a good one:
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/07/25/un-lebanon.html
The interesting bit is where the Canadian PM asks why the post "it remained manned during what is now, more or less, a war." A good question which I don't think the UN ever answered. One might assume that they were still there because the people in New York who could have ordered them to leave thought they could still be of some use. What kind of use, when there is no peace to keep? Providing human cover for Hezbollah fighters, actually, a fact which the Major was none too happy about to judge from his emails home on the matter, but he did his duty.
Have a listen to this interview with retired Maj Gen Lewis Mackenzie about it:
http://cbc.ca/metromorning/media/20060726LMCJUL26.ram
It's one thing to die for peace, it's another thing to die for Hezbollah.
People often say that the UN can hardly be any better than it's member states. OK, I agree. But why is it necessary that it reflect the worst aspects of its member states so much more than the best?
As for lessons learned, well, let's see, founded in the wake of the holocaust amid solemn vows of 'never again', staggers through the Cold War essentially powerless, emerges briefly triumphant afterwards, then Rwanda ('never again'), then Srebrenica ('never again'), and now Darfur (you get the picture). That doesn't sound like a learning institution to me.
Dag Hammerskjold seems a generally likeable sort. Except if you were Hungarian during the uprising in 1956, which coincidenntally is also having its 50th anniverary now. Then you might have some issues with the guy for not basicallly not lifting a finger to save you from hell. When 4 November rolls around this year we might recall that 50 years ago when Radio Budapest went off the air with the cry 'Help Hungary! Help us!' the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution calling on Hammerskjold 'to investigate the situation caused by foreign intervention in Hungary'. Which he did, at what might generously be called a snail's pace, prompting the Italian ambassador to comment 'what is the UN doing, while the General Secretary studies, investigates and reports, the Hungarian people is being massacred.' The UN dithered until 10 November by which time the Soviet Army had crushed the resistance, arrested Imre Nagy, and shipped him off to Moscow for execution. So not much to condemn really, fait accomplis you see. At the same time it took the Assembly no time at all to condemn the joint UK, France, Israel Suez operation which happened at the same time. So why so slow in the one case and so quick in the other?
'[…] staggers through the Cold War essentially powerless, emerges briefly triumphant afterwards, then Rwanda ('never again'), then Srebrenica ('never again'), and now Darfur (you get the picture). That doesn't sound like a learning institution to me.
During the Cold War it was due to the P5 that the UN remained powerless. The ‘briefly triumphant phase’ was when the member-states worked together implementing the UN charter. In Srebrenica the UN mandate was so poor that the troops on the ground could do nothing, in Rwanda the P5 turned their backs and nobody but New Zealand asked for a strong response. In the DR Congo a view years ago, when the UN wanted to deploy a sizable force, the P5 with the US in the lead vetoed the plan.
Darfur until today is an operation of the African Union. It would be good if the UN could implement a peace-operation, however, the disastrous foreign policy of the USA and the UK has caused the destruction not only of their own credibility but also of that of the UN. 3 years ago Bush could say that the UN would become obsolete if it did not support his war in Iraq, today nobody, not even the government of Sudan trusts western-supported operations.
Its easy to blame the UN but the UN today has 77.000 men (not counted civilians) in 20 operations all over the world. Some of them are successful like Sierra Leone and Burundi. There is peace now. (Maybe not forever, ok we’ll see).
Internally there has been the Brahimi report that triggered a lot of reforms that are now being implemented. Please have a look at the home page of the UN best-practice-unit. There is plenty to discover on why I think that the UN learns her lessons.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/lessons/
However, the political environment of the UN is a difficult one, not the least because of representatives of member-states like John Bolton.
Best wishes,
Olaf
Tony? Foggetaboutit! He's gone all soft...travelling in American Airlines first class beds...
Seriously, the mafia actually started as a protection ring against the new Italian state. Initially, officials from the North, given that unification was led by the Savoy Kingdom, were posted in Sicily. Totally different dialects/language led to mistrust and miscommunication ; security-police forces lacked particularly the confidence of the local population (sounds familiar?). Hence, mafiosi provided alternative "security-protection arrangements". Unfortunately, their mission degenerated into crime eventually.
So, we could technically use them, but eventually it would all degenerate...on a global scale (scary thought). The good thing is that maybe we would have baked ziti, eggplant parmigian, etc. feasts all over the world! Viva la cucina Italiana!
Saluti,
Don Caloggero
Tony's views on life, etc.
http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=b2_tYA_tGjw
Serge
When considering the UN, I always come back to Eisenhower's statement that, 'with all its defects, with all the failures that we can check up against it, the UN still represents man's best-organized hope to substitute the conference table for the battlefield'. This is as true today as ever it was. Whether one likes the UN's record or not, the world will continue to turn to it again and again. What is important is that people really understand what the UN can, and more importantly cannot, do. Also, the UN can only function effectively when it receives the support of national governments, especially the more powerful ones. The UN is the only world orgnization that we possess so let's all pull together to make it work in the best possible way and try and modify the behaviour of egoistical nation-states for the benefit of mankind. And let's do it with everyone pissing inside the same tent rather than having some pissing from outside it! But can we do it - the history of the 21st century will depend on our reaction to this collective challenge. I prefer to be an optimist, believing that the UN is indispensible to our future. That the UN has had miserable failures is beyond doubt but it has also achieved much - to dismiss the UN's record is unfair. I believe that without the actions of the UN the world would be a far worse place - warts and all.
May your god bless the UN!
Pip
Oh for gods sake! Wrote a long (overly-long probably) response to David's post. And when I signed in bloody blogger lost it. Grrr....
So gist of my response: UN does alot more that int peace and security, and yet everyone bangs on about how crap it is at PK. What about social affairs, economic, and HR - does alotta good in these areas.
Even in int peace and security it:
* provides normative framework and negotiating forum for states to engage in meaningful debate about when and for what purpose force may be used
* provides mechanism for states to collaborate in selectively intervening in humanitarian crises
* builds PK capacity in developing world
Not perfect. Is no better that the member states, yes, and so contains predictable flaws. But much better that the League of Nations, or indeed the world before 1919.
OK, we're agreed that the UN is not perfect. Right? So, is it perfectible if we all pull together? No. It is not. The UN's flaws are not correctible through tweaking here and there, they are flaws in its DNA, in its source code, if you will. If the core of the problem is the P5 how are you going to change that? Who's going to give up their seat/veto? As for the UN being the ultimate international conference table, well maybe this made some sense in the middle of the 20th century but I doubt it does now. In the 21st century the problem for repressive governments is that they can't shut people up or in anymore. The UN is not in the vanguard of this positive development. It is in fact the proxy, the rearguard, of states which actively oppose it. My confidence that the UN is unreformable rests in large part on the fact that two such states are P5 members.
I happily acknowledge that the UN is better than the League of Nations. So what? It's still not good enough. Time for Mark III. How about the League of Democracies?
Theo, I wish you hadn't lost your longer post because it's precisely on economic development and particularly human rights, where I'd argue its influence has been most baleful.
Basically the UN is a talk shop and cripplingly unable to act meaningfully at a point in history when talk is cheap and actions are needed more than words.
I do find myself agreeing with much of what you say but where’s the reality check? Is the UN going out of business? No! The UN may be outmoded yet it is still central to the international system and is likely to remain so for the at least the near to mid-term future. Everyone agrees that it is flawed but there is no consensus on how to fix it, change it or replace it and that consensus remains out of reach. It’s not perfect and not perfectible but it’s all we have – for the moment. Yes it’s not good enough but why not just continue tweak it?
There’s an old Chinese proverb that says, “when something is inevitable then welcome it”. There is recognition that there will surely come a time when the “stronger” non P5 members will not accept the status quo anymore and that would be the moment of truth for the UN. When the non P5 nations in years to come i.e. India? Germany? Japan? Brazil? etc, will demand to have their say. That is the time when the new realities of the world power would kick in and the likes of the UK, Russia and France would either “bow out” (unlikely but could be forced out) or accept and enlargement of the SC (more likely). By accepting the inevitability of the future as outlined above now, I think that we will see a gradual process of “giving ground” i.e. firstly enlarging the SC and then maybe addressing the veto, etc. Then the current P5 (but clearly not US and China) can do so on their own terms. The UN will survive and it will change. When and how are two of the main imponderables?
As for UNESCO, it is difficult to imagine how much more ruinous our world of 6 billion (there were less than 2 billion in 1945) would now be had there been no UN social economic and cultural agendas – and no UN institutions to attempt (admittedly sometimes very poorly) to put them into practice. A mixed record to be sure but I do not see how it could have been otherwise and it still has had a positive impact.
And as for human rights…well that’s a subject all on its own.
Post a Comment