i have a question about UN soldiers - Page 3




 
--
 
May 13th, 2005  
AlexKall
 
Last time i checked UN rules of intervention (sounds nice ey? And no i don't know if theres something called that but i use it as it sounds fancy ) the UN can only interven if a peece agreement between the fighting parties been signed, so for UN to be more "effective" you change that rule
May 13th, 2005  
Mohmar Deathstrike
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
Last time i checked UN rules of intervention (sounds nice ey? And no i don't know if theres something called that but i use it as it sounds fancy ) the UN can only interven if a peece agreement between the fighting parties been signed, so for UN to be more "effective" you change that rule
Also, the government of the host country needs to agree to the deployment of UN soldiers.
May 14th, 2005  
AlexKall
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borat Sagdiyev
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
Last time i checked UN rules of intervention (sounds nice ey? And no i don't know if theres something called that but i use it as it sounds fancy ) the UN can only interven if a peece agreement between the fighting parties been signed, so for UN to be more "effective" you change that rule
Also, the government of the host country needs to agree to the deployment of UN soldiers.
Thank you for that one!
--
May 17th, 2005  
ONERING
 
doesnt it have anything to do with when it is a certain countries turn to be leading UN?
May 17th, 2005  
AlexKall
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samurai_Zero
doesnt it have anything to do with when it is a certain countries turn to be leading UN?
As of what i know the membering states cast a vote to pass or to dismiss a peacekeeping mission so im not sure it would do much difference, although i'm not entierly sure how the missions are brought up, if its the General Secretary that chose them or if its some kind of an idea thats brought up by one/several memberingstates including the general secretary.
May 18th, 2005  
Bory
 
 
IMO
For the UN to be effective there need to be alot of changes. First, every conflict around the world, regardless of nation of origion, is to be discussed by the UNSC. Then they should no longer need permission from the host country to intervene, but they must inform them why they are going in. They need a Force designed purely to go into a conflict zone, to stablise the area to make it safe for Aid Workeres and the like. They operate differently to peacekeepers because they create the peace first. Finally, they can conduct Weapons inspections without approval of the host nation, without prior knowledge of their arrival, no schedual provided by the host nation and can move around in unmarked vehicles so nobody with a pair of binoculars and a radio can see them coming at great distances.
These are just ideas, tear them apart if you must, but remember this is just my opinon.
May 18th, 2005  
AlexKall
 
Without permaission it kind of becomes an invasion, which might give UN less support then it already has.
May 20th, 2005  
MI Blues
 

Topic: Just one point


Just one point about serving under UN Command -

According to the US Army, you cannot refuse to serve under UN Command if your unit has been placed under that command.

If you want a reference - google for:

SPC Michael New
May 20th, 2005  
raglan QA
 
i served with the UN in east timor we had many engagements during the early Batts our ROEs were to engage if engaged apon and detain if in doubt during one patrol a kiwi soldier was shot in the head by a sniper who was later handed over to indonesian forces by his own people after a threat of NZSAS intervention in the area ,so you see there is not a clear line in the term "Peace keeper".
May 24th, 2005  
sapper1
 
I think the term peacekeeper is misunderstood. The idea that you can train to 'peacekeep' implies nothing more than a glorified policeman. The UN website defines a peacekeeper as;

UN peacekeeper serves the United Nations in a specific mission area. His or her responsibilities are determined by the "mandate"--a definition of the tasks and goals of the mission-- formulated by the Security Council. The responsibilities of a UN military peacekeeper are primarily to maintain peace through patrols and observations. A military peacekeeper is still a soldier in his or her own country's service, and is responsible to his or her own national command, but serves under the control of the UN force commander--a senior military officer from one of the countries providing personnel for the UN mission

So peacekeepers NEED to be soldiers trained in and for combat operations that have the ability to 'keep the peace'. But they also have the responsibility to 'make the peace' depending on mandate and situation.

The fundamental basis of the UN was the five powers (essentially the main country/ combatants of the second world war) to establish an organisation to pick up where the league of nations left off (and failed...hence the second world war!!!). It recognises every country as equal regardless of wealth, resources or military power and that a country is sovereign. Sovereignty being defined as a recognised government etc... Should the UN be given the ability to get into a country to conduct 'weapon checks' etc without that countries knowledge would be the equivalent of spying and or invasion (depending on the means or the size of force). I agree that the organisation can move just a bit slowly and lacks the teeth at times, but the military force is limited by the mandate that they are serving under and their own governments restrictions. To move militarily on a sovereign country without their knowledge would imply that they are not considered sovereign and shouldn't be recognised in the first place! It would undermine the UN, it would fall by the wayside as the league of nations did.

Just my thoughts.