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?
It depends on their mandate in an area. In Rwanda, for instance, Belgian troops handed their weapons over to Rwandan soldiers because their mandate was really vague. They were then killed.
You also had those incidents in the Congo where they were watching militants shoot civilians, but couldn't do anything since their code of conduct or what-have-you stated they were to fire only when fired upon.
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?
Nothing, they're expected to boost UN political prestige and to silence people who say that UN is too passive. Oh, and the money paid to the countries providing the peacekeepers are a form of foreign aid - have you ever wondered why most peacekeeping troops come from countries like Pakistan or Nigeria?
Which is why I think that UN should resign on its peacekeeping role - it is almost never capable of giving its troops a robust enough mandate. One look at the totally different experience with UNPROFOR and SFOR explains why robust mandate is necessary to actually accomlish something.
I think it shouldn't been this way, but the UN soldiers are a global joke.
I remember a film about the former Yoguslavia fightings, where they were called throughout the film "blue dwarves"... or was it "blue smurfs"?
They never act on anything, they just report what's going on, unless ofcourse they are threatened not to tell something or get their cameras ruined.
On last Lebanon-Israeli war, the Hizbullah was shooting from their compounds... because "go away" didn't deter them
Also, yes, Israel has, in general, a very low appreciation of this organization - especially known is the saying of our first PM, David Ben-Gurion, who said "Um Shmum" (translated somewhere near "UN nothing", in a tone resembling "consequenses shmonsequences" )
To sum up, it was established for good reasons, and never did even 10% of it's job.
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?
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.
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?
Their purpose is to keep the peace. If peacekeepers start an exchange then that defeats the purpose. The mandate should expand to include defending civilians in the area, if it does not already.
Their purpose is to keep the peace. If peacekeepers start an exchange then that defeats the purpose. The mandate should expand to include defending civilians in the area, if it does not already.
Shooting people who are commiting crimes but have not been convicted of crimes is bad in the view of the UN. So you get shot at allot while some politician cries about mans inhumanity to man.
<cynicism> If it's your own country or an ally in question, you don't want the UN allowed to do military intervention. If it's not, you don't actually care whether the UN could do military intervention, or you would have done it yourself. </cynicism>
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.
You also had those incidents in the Congo where they were watching militants shoot civilians, but couldn't do anything since their code of conduct or what-have-you stated they were to fire only when fired upon.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
)
