# Has the UN been good at nation-building and maintaining peace & stability? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 5, 2003, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-un-been-good-at-nation-building-and-maintaining-peace-stability/173211 "2003-05-05T16:48:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-un-been-good-at-nation-building-and-maintaining-peace-stability/173211/61 "2003-05-07T12:12:46Z")
I _did_ say I would like to see the UN become more democratic and the surrender of the veto. I did _not_ set forth a rigorous and detailed blueprint of the working mechanics of a federal world government which specifically omitted a “moderating second chamber” or its non-parliamentary equivalent. Calling me on this is as absurd as me retorting with, “Oh, so you think giving the Representatives of the 5 most powerful states a veto is a _good_ idea, huh?” The veto is necessary to prevent the petulant isolationist tantrums of the permanent members of the Security Council. Where it to be withdrawn, these infantile fits of pique would spell the UN’s doom. A nation will only surrender its veto when it outgrows its childish patriotic disease and sees the world as a sphere. I fail to see how I’m disagreeing with anyone here? ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-un-been-good-at-nation-building-and-maintaining-peace-stability/173211/62 "2003-05-07T13:14:41Z")
> [@](#): > > ## _by OliverH_ quote: > > Originally posted by Dogface > The UN’s efficacy can be summed up in one word: > > ## Rwanda. > > Huh? > > I suggest you acquire some minimum knowledge on the UN’s role in Rwanda, and on the US’s role in the extent of the carnage. You gotta stop doing this, Ollie me boy. Kindly do provide to us “some minimum knowledge” on the UN’s and the US’s role in Rwanda - with cites, if you please. If you keep making these bold assertions without any supporting evidence (and, might I add, without deigning to respond to challenges to your assertions), people might, just might, start to think that your positions are full of shit. Sua ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-un-been-good-at-nation-building-and-maintaining-peace-stability/173211/63 "2003-05-07T13:23:11Z")
Well, one good reason for the veto is that the people of the Security Council are the Big Boys that supply most of the funding and/or troops for the UN. The smaller countries, and this is an example, like the islamic bloc, which is just what happens to come to mind, it could be the South American or African bloc… outnumber them significantly. This means that you’re marginalizing the people who pay for everything. You do that, and the big boys will _leave_ the table. Yes, I know Bush did it anyhow, but this would be worse. In short, without a ‘higher’ power, with the big boys firmly in charge, the UN is as dead as the League of Nations. Not saying it’s perfect, but I also don’t see how placing your country’s best interests first is a disease, nor do I see why we should outgrow it and see the world as an oblate sphereoid. Certainly, we should strive to make things better for all people. But why must we put other people’s interests ahead of our own? Frankly, it’s just a bad idea, that puts the country that does it into either passive-aggressive schizophrenia, or in the place of the Indians as the settlers come to the New World. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-un-been-good-at-nation-building-and-maintaining-peace-stability/173211/64 "2003-05-07T13:50:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > \*\*You gotta stop doing this, Ollie me boy. Kindly do provide to us “some minimum knowledge” on the UN’s and the US’s role in Rwanda - with cites, if you please. > If you keep making these bold assertions without any supporting evidence (and, might I add, without deigning to respond to challenges to your assertions), people might, just might, start to think that your positions are full of shit. > > Sua \*\* I take that as meaning you are the only one entitled to be full of shit, launching assertions without evidence as a rule? It is fun to see you hold others to higher standards than yourself. It shows you are nothing but a narcistic ignoramus. a)The US prevented a reinforcement of peacekeepers in Rwanda. b)The US has happily ignored the entire area ever since, with a former envoy begging for US support for an African Union peace mission in neigboring Burundi, while the EU and Belgium already are supporting them with quite a lot of money. The US cares CRAP what is happening over there. c)The UN had a minuscule peacekeeping force in Rwanda at the time the civil war boiled over. Nothing that could have prevented anything on the scale that happened. As for why the force was so small, see a) ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-un-been-good-at-nation-building-and-maintaining-peace-stability/173211/65 "2003-05-07T13:53:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by E-Sabbath \* > \*\*Well, one good reason for the veto is that the people of the Security Council are the Big Boys that supply most of the funding and/or troops for the UN. > \*\* Sorry, but that’s incorrect. The number of troops or the funding supplied has no relationship whatsoever. Chief suppliers of troops for the UN are countries like India, which is one of the most experienced countries in terms of peacekeeping. The funding of several non-permanent member EU countries is considerable compared to permanent members, especially when looking at their size. Not the least, several of the chief payers have no permanent seat and as such no veto power, for historic reasons, specifically Japan and Germany. The major power status is defined solely historically. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-un-been-good-at-nation-building-and-maintaining-peace-stability/173211/66 "2003-05-07T15:13:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OliverH \* > I take that as meaning you are the only one entitled to be full of shit, launching assertions without evidence as a rule? Cite? > [@](#): > > It is fun to see you hold others to higher standards than yourself. It shows you are nothing but a narcistic ignoramus. Cite? > [@](#): > > a)The US prevented a reinforcement of peacekeepers in Rwanda. Cite? > [@](#): > > b)The US has happily ignored the entire area ever since, with a former envoy begging for US support for an African Union peace mission in neigboring Burundi, while the EU and Belgium already are supporting them with quite a lot of money. The US cares CRAP what is happening over there. Cite? > [@](#): > > c)The UN had a minuscule peacekeeping force in Rwanda at the time the civil war boiled over. Nothing that could have prevented anything on the scale that happened. As for why the force was so small, see a) Cite? Since you “know” all these things, kindly provide us with the benefit of your knowledge and tell us (and link for us) the _sources_ of your knowledge. Otherwise, just pipe down, Beavis. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-un-been-good-at-nation-building-and-maintaining-peace-stability/173211/67 "2003-05-07T15:38:17Z")
I found a [report by an independent agency](http://www.xs4all.nl/~adampost/Archive/RR/rr_001.htm) on the UN actions RE: Rwanda. I haven’t read all that much of it yet, but so far it seems pretty fair and even-handed. It doesn’t seem to gloss over the UN’s organizational failures nor does it absolve the member states for their apathy and failure to support the peacekeeping efforts. It answers many of **Sua’s** questions, although it doesn’t necessarially support the spin **OliverH** is putting on the situation. The opening paragraphs read thusly > [@](#): > > Approximately 800,000 people were killed during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. The systematic slaughter of men, women and children which took place over the course of about 100 days between April and July of 1994 will forever be remembered as one of the most abhorrent events of the twentieth century. Rwandans killed Rwandans, brutally decimating the Tutsi population of the country, but also targetting moderate Hutus. Appalling atrocities were committed, by militia and the armed forces, but also by civilians against other civilians. > > The international community did not prevent the genocide, nor did it stop the killing once the genocide had begun. This failure has left deep wounds within Rwandan society, and in the relationship between Rwanda and the international community, in particular the United Nations. These are wounds which need to be healed, for the sake of the people of Rwanda and for the sake of the United Nations. Establishing the truth is necessary for Rwanda, for the United Nations and also for all those, wherever they may live, who are at risk of becoming victims of genocide in the future. > > In seeking to establish the truth about the role of the United Nations during the genocide, the Independent Inquiry hopes to contribute to building renewed trust between Rwanda and the United Nations, to help efforts of reconciliation among the people of Rwanda, and to contribute to preventing similar tragedies from occurring ever again. The Inquiry has analysed the role of the various actors and organs of the United Nations system. Each part of that system, in particular the Secretary-General, the Secretariat, the Security Council and the Member States of the organisation, must assume and acknowledge their respective parts of the responsibility for the failure of the international community in Rwanda. Acknowledgement of responsibility must also be accompanied by a will for change: a commitment to ensure that catastrophes such as the genocide in Rwanda never occur anywhere in the future. It isn’t a pretty picture of any of the players in this event, but as far as I can tell it is factual and unbiased in any sense I can discern. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-un-been-good-at-nation-building-and-maintaining-peace-stability/173211/68 "2003-05-07T15:46:08Z")
While I understand that my position is not strictly correct, it is broadly so, OliverH. That is, if you take away the veto, the small players take over the UN and the big ones will leave. Perhaps India does supply more warm bodies, but when you need the big guns and the bombing raids, it’s pretty much one of the big five you call. Certainly, at this point in history, things have changed from the original point of the security council, and perhaps Germany should have France’s seat. And India could use one as well. I am certainly not saying that it is perfect as is… but without a replacement of some sort, it would become a frothing mess. Basically, to get _anything_ done, you need a small committee of people who can assign tasks and have them carried out. This is why the Senate has ‘committies on’ this and that. So, if you eliminate the Security Council, you pretty much have to replace it with either something else… which I have yet to see a valid discussion of… or with nothing, and watch the insanity erupt. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-un-been-good-at-nation-building-and-maintaining-peace-stability/173211/69 "2003-05-07T15:46:31Z")
Thank you, **Mtgman.** See how easy that is, **OliverH**? Sua ---
**Author:** ![chula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a4c791/32.png) [@chula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chula)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-un-been-good-at-nation-building-and-maintaining-peace-stability/173211/70 "2003-05-07T20:56:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SentientMeat \* > **If I may belabour the obvious, The UN is its component nations. Any failure on _its_ part is the failure of Britain, France, the US, China and so on all the way down to Kiribati, Trinidad and Leichtenstein. If its most powerful member sees the UN as “them” rather than “us” it is no wonder that difficulties arise.** Let’s be clear here. The fault for any failure to act does not go all the way down the line. It is the Security Council, not the General Assembly, that has the power to authorize members to use force. I agree with your overall point. The point of this thread seems to be to bash the U.N. for failing to prevent civil wars. People on the right like **december** try to argue against the U.N. from both sides: Its lack of power is pointed to as grounds for reducing its power. They complain that it’s too powerful and infringes on our sovereignty, but then show how impotent it is. _If_ the U.N. had the power to act more independently, it _might_ be able to fulfill its objective to maintain world peace. It’s the United States and other world powers that prevent it from fulfilling its potential. With respect to Rwanda, there are a lot of interesting declassified documents that demonstrate the U.S. government’s knowledge of the impending and ongoing genocide and its refusal to respond. (I believe these are on the internet somewhere, but I can’t link to my source.) Here are some juicy quotes:[ul][li]Memo from Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of African Affairs, to Secretary of State, April 6, 1994: “If, as it appears, both Presidents [of Rwanda and Burundi] have been killed, **there is a strong likelihood that widespread violence could break out** in either or both countries… Our strategy is to appeal for calm in both countries…”[/li][li]Memo for Under-Secretary of Defense, Apr. 11, 1994: “Unless both sides can be convinced to return to the peace process, **a massive (hundreds of thousands) bloodbath will ensue** that will likely spill over into Burundi.”[/li][li]U.S. Department of State, cable to U.S. Mission to the U.N., Apr. 15, 1994: “Department believes that there is **insufficient justification to maintain a UN peacekeeping presence** in Rwanda and that the international community must give highest priority to full, orderly withdrawal of all UNAMIR personnel as soon as possible… USUN is instructed to inform NSC colleagues that the United States believes that **the first priority of the UNSC is to instruct the Secretary-General an orderly withdrawal of all UNAMIR forces from Rwanda** … The United States does not believe that a Security Council resolution is necessary to implement this withdrawal… **We will oppose any effort at this time to maintain a UNAMIR presence in Rwanda**.”[/li][li]Discussion Paper, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, May 1, 1994: “Genocide discussion: Language that calls for an international investigation of human rights abuses and possible violations of the genocide convention. **Be careful. Legal at State was worried about this yesterday – Genocide finding could commit USG to actually ‘do something.’** ”[/li][li]Memo from Under Secretary of Defense, May 5, 1994: “We have looked at option to stop the [radio] broadcasts [that were the means by which the genocide plot was executed]… and concluded jamming is an ineffective and expensive mechanism… I believe would be wiser to assist in Rwanda in the relief effort.”[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-un-been-good-at-nation-building-and-maintaining-peace-stability/173211/71 "2003-05-08T07:10:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > \*\* > > Since you “know” all these things, kindly provide us with the benefit of your knowledge and tell us (and link for us) the _sources_ of your knowledge. > > Otherwise, just pipe down, Beavis. > > Sua \*\* Funny that you always as others fpr links but provide none of your own. Stop wasting people’s time here. As long as you have nothing to support YOUR claims, you have no right whatsoever to ask of others to spend more than minimum energy on you. As long as you are an arrogant, lazy braggart, responding to your posts at all is more than you can expect. As long as you demonstably consider it unnecessary to acquire a minimum background knowledge, there is no reason to assume that any cite would change your opinion, since it would require you actually reading it, something that you are demonstrably unwilling to do. So, from now on, unless you provide a cite yourself, don’t expect me to waste my time on your double standard. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-un-been-good-at-nation-building-and-maintaining-peace-stability/173211/72 "2003-05-08T07:11:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > \*\*Thank you, **Mtgman.** > > See how easy that is, **OliverH**? > > Sua \*\* Obviously not that easy, since you could not provide any cite of your own. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-un-been-good-at-nation-building-and-maintaining-peace-stability/173211/73 "2003-05-08T07:23:29Z")
Oliver my man, Sua’s point is that you seem to have a habit of making strong assertions but not documenting them. I agree with Sua, e.g. while I understand and know the background to Rwanda and saw where you were coming from (although blaming this on the US entirely seems distortive) your simply asserting the argument was not terribly enlightening for helpful, above all insofar as it does not seem to derive from any clear personal record or body of knowledge. It would, then, be helpful if you developed the habit of supporting your argument. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-un-been-good-at-nation-building-and-maintaining-peace-stability/173211/74 "2003-05-08T12:59:33Z")
Googling [**Romeo Dallaire**](http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-menuext&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Romeo+Dallaire) should give anyone interested a a great deal of information as to what actually happened in Rwanda. Nothing the West should be proud of. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-un-been-good-at-nation-building-and-maintaining-peace-stability/173211/75 "2003-05-08T13:04:28Z")
I was going to draft a response, but on reflection, **Collounsbury’s** response says all that needs to be said. Sua ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-un-been-good-at-nation-building-and-maintaining-peace-stability/173211/76 "2003-05-08T14:34:07Z")
[This](http://www.amacad.org/news/scourge.htm) is another extremely incisive article about Rwanda, taking a wider angle view of the West’s culpability for the genocide. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-un-been-good-at-nation-building-and-maintaining-peace-stability/173211/77 "2003-05-08T17:53:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > \*\*Oliver my man, Sua’s point is that you seem to have a habit of making strong assertions but not documenting them. \*\* It seems that Sua has the very same habit. I did not provide any more documentation to my rebuttal than Sua contributed to the point I rebutted. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I agree with Sua, e.g. while I understand and know the background to Rwanda and saw where you were coming from (although blaming this on the US entirely seems distortive) your simply asserting the argument was not terribly enlightening for helpful, above all insofar as it does not seem to derive from any clear personal record or body of knowledge. > > It would, then, be helpful if you developed the habit of supporting your argument. \*\* I DO support my arguments when I deem it warranted, as the CCW thread should show. I do, however, not consider it warranted to rebut arguments presented without support themselves. I do not consider it necessary to grant people courtesies they are unwilling to grant themselves when I am stretched for both time and means. I recently went though an intercontinental move and have neither a computer nor internet access of my own until I settled in at a new home and job, but am rather using those of friends, family and internet cafes. As such, I frequently pay considerable sums for posting here. If Sua is ready to compensate me for time, effort, and financial loss, Sua can feel free to ask me for cites on the genetics of the green men of Mars if Sua feels like doing it. Otherwise, I consider it unnecessary to shoot with heavy artillery against sparrows such as wild, unsupported anti-UN rants. It would be a waste of both time and money, and both are scarce with me at the moment. If Sua wants cites, Sua should provide some. Asking others for cites while being unwilling to bring some yourself is plain and simply harassment. It is not a valid objection, since it is obviously not done out of concern for validity of the argument -if cites were seen as important for such validity, they would have been provided with the original post- but rather merely to pester and harass a dissenter. I see no obligation to give in to such primitive mudslinging. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-un-been-good-at-nation-building-and-maintaining-peace-stability/173211/78 "2003-05-08T20:26:22Z")
What thread are you reading, **OliverH**? The factual statements I have made in this thread - that the UN has engaged in only four nation-building exercises to date, and that the UN mandates that nations it is building/rebuilding establish democratic governments and respect the rights of minorities - have not been challenged by anyone here. I have not provided cites because no one has contested those statements. If you disagree with either of those statements, or wish to acquire “some minimum knowledge” as to either of those statement, please let me know, and I will provide cites. Indeed, contrary to your (I love this **Collounsbury** phrase) “strong assertions”, I cannot remember a single instance in my time in GD where someone asked me for a cite where I have either not provided it or acknowledged that the statement in question was unsupported. As you claim otherwise, I’m afraid that I’m going to have to ask for a cite. OTOH, I cannot remember a single instance where you have provided support for a challenged statement. In GD, one is not required to provide support for one’s factual statements until such support is requested. I’ve asked for support for your statements twice in this thread. You have failed to provide them. Continuing on the “what thread are you reading?” theme: > [@](#): > > Otherwise, I consider it unnecessary to shoot with heavy artillery against sparrows such as wild, unsupported anti-UN rants. What _are_ you talking about? The only thing in this thread I have said about the UN at all is that they have engaged in four nation-building exercises. Is that “anti-UN”? Is that a “rant”? As it happens, I’m rather pro-UN. I think the UN erred in its response to the Iraq situation, but that doesn’t make me anti-UN. I think that “Abacab” was a bad album, but that doesn’t make me anti-Genesis. > [@](#): > > As such, I frequently pay considerable sums for posting here. If Sua is ready to compensate me for time, effort, and financial loss, Sua can feel free to ask me for cites on the genetics of the green men of Mars if Sua feels like doing it. There is a simple answer to that: don’t make, as **Collounsbury** put it, “strong assertions [without] documenting them” if you are not in a position to document them. As for compensating you for your time and effort, I am simply asking you to **behave according to the accepted rules of GD.** No one else gets compensated for supporting their own statements; why should you? But enough of this, we are distracting others from the utterly brilliant debate begun by **december.** If you wish to continue this discussion, kindly start a Pit thread. Sua ---
**Author:** ![chula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a4c791/32.png) [@chula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chula)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-un-been-good-at-nation-building-and-maintaining-peace-stability/173211/79 "2003-05-08T20:50:21Z")
I’ve reread this thread and I’m still not entirely sure how this spat between **Sua** and **Oliver** happened. I was under the impression that it started when **Sua** criticized **Oliver** for his initial terse response about Rwanda. I agree that the post by **Dogface** did not require an extensive, well researched rebuttal. As for the rest of it, all I hear is bickering and it’s hard to distill anything of substance that might have been said. Sorry if I’m playing junior mod, but I am interested in the topic of international intervention in civil conflicts and nation-building and would like to get back to that. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-un-been-good-at-nation-building-and-maintaining-peace-stability/173211/80 "2003-05-08T21:07:33Z")
Actualla, **chula,** it started on page 1 of the thread, when **OliverH** made the rather remarkable statement that the Iraqi coalition was responsible most times UN peace-keeping/nation-building failed, and indeed had “sabotaged” such efforts. Given that the coalition (particularly the US and UK) could simply veto such efforts rather than allowing them to start and then sabotaging them, I questioned **OliverH’s** statement and asked for support. None were forthcoming. The rest is history. Sua [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-un-been-good-at-nation-building-and-maintaining-peace-stability/173211.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-un-been-good-at-nation-building-and-maintaining-peace-stability/173211.md?page=5)