UN troops unable to return fire

[Terxpahseyton]

Peacekeepers can not and never could create peace or enforce peace. They can only keep it and that only in those cases, where both nations / groups are willing to.
In the past it was tryed otherwise, UN troops tried to enforce peace but every time this attempt failed horribly. Examples for that are countless, but there are also numerous missions which I could name where this very passive concept of peacekeeping worked just fine and helped to save lives.

To declare the entire peacekeeping-idea as useless ignores those successes as well as other accomplishments like a global awareness of right and wrong.

But to even cripple the ability of peacekeepers to defend themselfs is stupid. There is no arguing about that.

 

[Racsoviale]

It's really too bad, since the idea behind is admirable and noble, unfortunately the premise of the UN and their general approach to their armed forces is quite limited by international law.

As far as I know there are quite some laws regarding the UN and how it is allowed to interfere in regards to sovereing nations.

Was the Korean war not a UN sponsored action?

 

[Aegis]

When UN peacekeepers are sent in they have specific rules of engagement, in other words they are limited to what they can do by the political constraints of their own governments. It's not that they can't fight or don't want to fight. Don't you think they're just itching to get involved in protecting people or whatever? Its their govts which tie their hands so it is impossible to do the job. It does nobody any good to make fun of them or dismiss them as cowards or fools.
Childish comments like the one above just confirm the crass immaturity of far too many posters in this forum.

I understand that they have mandates and rules of engagement, but the girl scouts do not have to suffer those penalties, therefore they would be more useful.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Depends on the situation. Do you have a specific link or story that brings this up?

But, usually, military forces are allowed to at a minimum defend themselves. I would have to see the situation surrounding the event to make a clear opinion.

UN peacekeepers are supposed to be allowed to use their weapons in self-defence.

The first thing that comes to mind is UN peacekeepers being fired upon in Lebanon by Israeli warplanes.

 

[Gooblah]

The self-defence only counts once they're fired upon. It's why the UN was kind of screwed in Bosnia and stuff - not only manpower, but just that militant groups wouldn't hit them, just shoot the civilians.

The problem is that the UN is ultimately trapped between a rock and a hard place: If they allow peacekeepers to be peacemakers (as VR put it), they run the risk of killing the 'wrong people', further degarding their image and harming efforts to even create a peace. For now (for good or for bad), the UN maintains an image of a neutral (if ineffective) body, allowing it to at least start negotiations between different sides.

The mandates do change given the area that the troops are in. For example, in Sudan, the UN mandate is to aid AU soldiers when requested, protect supplies and aid, and defend refugee camps; however, they cannot actively seek out Janjaweed militiamen.

The worst part is that this is unlikely to be changed anytime soon. Most governments don't want more powerful United Nations (the few that do are too weak/unstable to do anything about it).

 

[Formaldehyde]

What's the point of sending an international force to maintain peace that can't return fire when fired upon and isn't allowed to use their weapons ( and sometimes even to carry them)? What are they expected to accomplish?

Can you imagine what would have happened if they returned fire against Israelis in Lebanon and Palestine?

Besides, in the case of Lebanon, didn't the UN commander claim afterwards that Israel was 'provoked' into attacking the UN position because there were Lebanese hostiles 'nearby'?

 

[Defiant47]

Which is why we need a powerful nation, like the US, to go in everywhere and enforce peace through military means.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Glad I wasn't drinking coffee when I read that.

 

[capslock]

 

[Kerozine]

The first thing that comes to mind is UN peacekeepers being fired upon in Lebanon by Israeli warplanes.

Got an excerpt regarding the circumstances of that incident and what the UN did or didn't do?

 

[Formaldehyde]

It's fairly common knowledge.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x150042

UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - An Israeli air attack on a UN base in south Lebanon that killed four peacekeepers last July involved the use of a precision-guided bomb, the United Nations said Friday.

"The UN patrol base at Khiam was struck by a 500 kg (1,102-pound) precision-guided aerial bomb," a UN statement said after a UN board enquiry submitted its report on the incident to UN chief Kofi Annan.

"The Board of Enquiry notes that the Israeli authorities have accepted full responsibility for the incident and apologized to the UN for what they say was an 'operational level' mistake," it added.

The killing of the four UN observers -- an Austrian, a Canadian, a Finn and a Chinese man -- had drawn strong condemnation by Annan

http://www.formin.finland.fi/Public...83200&nodeid=32278&contentlan=2&culture=en-US

Israel has stated that the incident was due to an operational error. According to Israel's report, the Israeli division-level targeting centre operating in the area had a computer problem. Because of this the centre had to enter data into the targeting system manually. Due to an error that occurred in connection with the manual entry of the data, the information on Patrol Base Khiam was not indicated in the system as that of a UN location. As a result of this error, the location of Patrol Base Khiam was chosen as one of the targets for the IDF’s fire in preparation for the ground manoeuvre.

And here come the spin doctors with their version of what happened:

http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=37278180-a261-421d-84a9-7f94d5fc6d50

The words of a Canadian United Nations observer written just days before he was killed in an Israeli bombing of a UN post in Lebanon are evidence Hezbollah was using the post as a "shield" to fire rockets into Israel, says a former UN commander in Bosnia.

Those words, written in an e-mail dated just nine days ago, offer a possible explanation as to why the post -- which according to UN officials was clearly marked and known to Israeli forces -- was hit by Israel on Tuesday night, said retired Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie yesterday.

The strike hit the UN observation post in the southern Lebanese village of El Khiam, killing Canadian Maj. Paeta Hess-von Kruedener and three others serving as unarmed UN military observers in the area.

Just last week, Maj. Hess-von Kruedener wrote an e-mail about his experiences after nine months in the area, words Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie said are an obvious allusion to Hezbollah tactics.

"What I can tell you is this," he wrote in an e-mail to CTV dated July 18. "We have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both (Israeli) artillery and aerial bombing.

"The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters (sic) of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters (sic) from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but rather due to tactical necessity."

Those words, particularly the last sentence, are not-so-veiled language indicating Israeli strikes were aimed at Hezbollah targets near the post, said Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie.

"What that means is, in plain English, 'We've got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the (Israeli Defence Forces)," he said.

That would mean Hezbollah was purposely setting up near the UN post, he added. It's a tactic Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie, who was the first UN commander in Sarajevo during the Bosnia civil war, said he's seen in past international missions: Aside from UN posts, fighters would set up near hospitals, mosques and orphanages.

 

[amadeus]

Not to criticize you, Forma, but boy... the DU forums are like, the politburo in Stalin's time, if you don't agree with the site's line, you disappear.

 

[Flying Pig]

Actually the UN are pretty good (or at least it's not hard to dodge their rules). Basically, if you want to do some real soldiering then pit your men in the most annoying places possible (I took mine into the middle of a fight once) and then shoot at them (generally, this means holing up in refugee/civvy camps) and they either all die because almost nobody is as good as us or give up because the sight of blue berets and elite soldiers is not one that the (generally irregular or poorly-trained) combatants in peacekeeping zones like. The rule is against giving fire, not returning it.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Not to criticize you, Forma, but boy... the DU forums are like, the politburo in Stalin's time, if you don't agree with the site's line, you disappear.

It popped up on google and the yahoo link to the actual article was dead. Find any problem with the FACTS that came from that site, or are you just going to ignore them because DU are a bunch of commies?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Double post.

 

[amadeus]

It popped up as the first hit on google. Find any problem with the FACTS that came from that site, or are you just going to ignore them because DU are a bunch of commies?

I'm going to ignore them because they're a bunch of commies, but I'm not going to ignore the actual AFP story...

 

[Formaldehyde]

There are no opinions expressed in that URL. Thanks for posting your ad hominem for no reason, as usual.

 

[Flying Pig]

From the rifle, I'd say that was one of ours as well...

 

[Kerozine]

It's fairly common knowledge.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x150042

http://www.formin.finland.fi/Public...83200&nodeid=32278&contentlan=2&culture=en-US

And here come the spin doctors with their version of what happened:

http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=37278180-a261-421d-84a9-7f94d5fc6d50

What's the point of sending an international force to maintain peace that can't return fire when fired upon and isn't allowed to use their weapons ( and sometimes even to carry them)? What are they expected to accomplish?

I don't see the link between that incident and what the OP asked for.

It sounds as though it were an accident, at best.

 

[Flying Pig]

All soldiers are allowed to return fire; anything else is the officers getting it wrong (at which point my school of management says ignore them but do so well that they can't fault you)