# 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:** 7\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-un-been-good-at-nation-building-and-maintaining-peace-stability/173211/81 "2003-05-08T21:47:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OliverH \* > \*\*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. \*\* This is not an accurate representation of what has happened in this thread. The actual situation is more accurately discribed thusly. **Dogface** posted a drive-by assertion that the situation in Rwanda is par for the course for the UN. A poor assertion and almost useless in the greater scheme. It should have been supported by fair and unbiased reports on the UN’s role in Rwanda. The proper way to respond to this situation was with a polite request for **Dogface** to back up his assertions about the UN and/or give some facts to let the gentle reader understand that his assertions were incorrect. You didn’t do that. You took issue with his assertion(which is just fine) **and** asserted that the US was partly, or even mostly, culpable for the failure of the peacekeeping effort in Rwanda. **Sua** , fairly rudely and with some minor _ad hominems_(bad **Sua**!), called you on the **second part**. Your independent assertion, not your refutation of **Dogface’s** unsupported assertion(as you, correctly, noted, unsupported assertions do not require supported refutations, even though supported refutations are preferable). You replied with _ad hominem_ and more unsupported assertions. **Sua** was rude, but he wasn’t making any assertions which required support. He was asking you to prove yours. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2003, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-un-been-good-at-nation-building-and-maintaining-peace-stability/173211/82 "2003-05-09T07:48:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > \*\* > > 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? > \*\* You are asking me to behave according to the accepted rules of GD by launching not one but SEVERAL ad hominem attacks against me. That’s certainly an interesting standard. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2003, 9:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-un-been-good-at-nation-building-and-maintaining-peace-stability/173211/83 "2003-05-09T09:25:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > \*\* > > 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. > \*\* Of course it is entirely inconceivable that having the efforts HAPPEN, but not succeed, is an advantage in itself, and can be used for other goals. Such as the infiltration of a country with intelligence operatives as happened in the case of Iraq, as confirmed both by inspectors such as Ritter and others, and the usual anonymous members of the intelligence community cited in several media reports (such as the one cited on [http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/scomspy3.htm](http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/scomspy3.htm) ). As the inspectors point out themselves, confidence is critical to their work. Such infiltration undermines confidence in them on the Iraqi side. Likewise, sabotaging the new efforts by inundating the inspectors with bogus ‘intelligence’ was very helpful in supporting their ‘ineffectivity’, as was the deliberate fabrication of evidence as to how Iraq allegedly circumvented the inspections, such as the ‘before and after’ satellite pictures. It was a big operation of PR to enable the government to say ‘We tried to go through the UN, but the UN can’t do it’. You were furthermore shown by now that US objections were a factor in getting more peacekeepers into Rwanda. Add to that the undermining of the Small Arms conference -which not the least directly endangers the lives of peacekeepers and subverted the attempt to reduce the number of firearms at the disposal of rogue militant groups. Add to it US insistence of multiple parallel chains of command in Somalia, which, along with the attitude of US troops towards civilians, was a factor in the failure of the operation. (cf. eg. ‘There is no Frontline: Lessons from Black Hawk Down’, The Army Journal, September 2000. 73-88.) Add to it the US insistence on bombing in Yugoslavia, rather than sending in troops on the ground, which caused plenty of collateral damage and supported the nationalist agenda in Serbia. It was specifically that bombing campaign which led to Zoran Djindjic making plenty of enemies among nationalists when he didn’t condemn the attack. (Cf. e.g. [http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/884133.asp](http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/884133.asp) ) Add to that the consistent funding problems for peacekeeping operations in which not the least US refusal to pay its dues is a factor. (cf. eg. [http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/un/uncrisis.html](http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/un/uncrisis.html) ) Add to it the sabotage against the nuclear test ban treaty, the verification protocol on the bioweapons convention etc and the US has done plenty of fostering of arms races, in many cases thereby endangering UN peacekeeping missions, such as in Pakistan. Sabotage can be done with full intent, as in the Iraq case. It can happen out of cowardice and unwillingness to chose the proper means to a goal because the price is deemed too high, such as in Serbia. It can happen out of sheer nationalist arrogance such as in Somalia. And sorry, man, ‘allowing’ the UN to do the job is no proof of anything, and brings little share in the responsibility of a success. Words don’t bring results, actions do. As for UN share in nationbuilding and peacekeeping, the UN has contributed to the democratic development in numerous nations, such as Mozambique, with long-term positive effect. (Cf. [http://www.un.org/events/facts.htm](http://www.un.org/events/facts.htm) ) See, if you actually stop spewing insults for a moment, you actually get some cites. But as long as your posts are limited to ad hominems, you will neither get cites, nor do you deserve getting them. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2003, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-un-been-good-at-nation-building-and-maintaining-peace-stability/173211/84 "2003-05-09T14:14:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by E-Sabbath \* > \*\*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. \*\* I am curious. Why do you think Germany should get France’s seat? Germany has neither the military nor logistic capabilities of France, it’s practically sole strength is in its economy. France has a)a professional army (even if that’s a somewhat new fact) b)bases all over the planet c)nuclear weapons d)strategic submarines and e)a somewhat buggy aircraft carrier as well as f)the first warship on the planet designed mast to keel for stealth considerations On top of that, France is much less restricted in its use of armed force than Germany is, due to Germany’s constitutional restraints. And while Germany has the stronger economy, France is a member of the G7/8, too. ---
**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 9, 2003, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-un-been-good-at-nation-building-and-maintaining-peace-stability/173211/85 "2003-05-09T17:18:04Z")
To be honest, it was a tossup between Germany and Japan as the suggestion. Germany seems to be more central and less psychotic in the EU than France does. Ah! Yes. You said > [@](#): > > 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 So, since money matters, give one of them a seat. As a random suggestion. By the way, what ship is this that the French have that predates the Sea Swallow and the … hm. DD-21, I think? program? Course, that’s surface navy and radar stealth. The first ship designed for stealth considerations, mast to keep would be American… Revolutionary War. The Turtle. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-un-been-good-at-nation-building-and-maintaining-peace-stability/173211/86 "2003-05-10T12:27:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by E-Sabbath \* > \*\*So, since money matters, give one of them a seat. As a random suggestion. \*\* Well, France is a major payer, too. > [@](#): > > \*\* > By the way, what ship is this that the French have that predates the Sea Swallow and the … hm. DD-21, I think? program? Course, that’s surface navy and radar stealth. The first ship designed for stealth considerations, mast to keep would be American… Revolutionary War. The Turtle. \*\* The french Lafayette class frigate has already been exported in several other nations. Its modular design allows it to easily be adjusted for a variety of tasks, such as anti-sub warfare, surveillance. (Taiwan is using them as the Kang Ding class, for example, though these have been adjusted even more to try and get more equipment in Taiwan bought from the US). Info for example at [http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/lafayette/index.html](http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/lafayette/index.html) (Lafayette original design) [http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/fayette/index.html](http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/fayette/index.html) (Kang Ding class) Info from the manufacturer at [http://www.dcnintl.com/pdf/lafayette.pdf](http://www.dcnintl.com/pdf/lafayette.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 9:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-un-been-good-at-nation-building-and-maintaining-peace-stability/173211/87 "2003-05-12T09:55:08Z")
[An excellent article](http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,952144,00.html) by a UN worker in Sierra Leone. Some choice snippets: > [@](#): > > Couldn’t DutchBat (the Dutch UN battalion) have stopped the Srebrenica massacre? Couldn’t ZamBat (the Zambia battalion) have done more than look on while 4,000 people died at the hands of Rwandan government soldiers? “No, they couldn’t,” says Polman. "The UN has strict principles on sovereignty and non-intervention. And in any case, in some of those situations there was nothing they could do … The members of the UN security council who are the only ones who have the power to decide whether the blue helmets will be dispatched. And it’s the member states, especially the rich ones, who fail to fund the UN properly, so these peace missions are under-equipped and often empty shows > [@](#): > > Her last UN peace mission was in Sierra Leone. “That was one that seems to have worked, partly because it is run by non-whites. The Nigerians know how to deal with the rebels and the Bangladeshis, Indians and Pakistanis are terrific at reconstruction projects.” Are the veto-holding states _really_ that essential? It appears that the money they have already promised but not yet paid would be more useful than their immediate involvement. > [@](#): > > “Haiti was a little like Iraq,” says Polman. “The US wades in, believing it can overthrow a dictatorship, and afterwards the real problems start. How can you establish democracy in those circumstances, particularly when the organisation charged with upholding it, the United Nations, has no money?..I saw how the world’s most powerful countries manipulate the UN to fulfil their national interests. And when they can’t manipulate it, they bypass it. That’s why what happened in Iraq wasn’t a surprise to me. And the mess that will follow won’t be either.” I hope she is wrong, I really do. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-un-been-good-at-nation-building-and-maintaining-peace-stability/173211.md?page=4)