6 ms·

>>Also the UN is an absolute joke UN is literally just a forum for countries to meet and discuss matters. Nothing more nothing less. I have no idea why people

>>Also the UN is an absolute joke UN is literally just a forum for countries to meet and discuss matters. Nothing more nothing less. I have no idea why people expect UN to take action, when UN is explicitly not an organisation for taking any actions.

handedness 4y ago
The UN is certainly something more than that, and not literally just a forum. They have an active duty peacekeeping force of approximately 81K people. While that's similar in size to the active duty forces from a nation like a Peru or Chile, the Blue Helmets have had a de facto quasi-blanket immunity when committing war crimes, and have some pretty horrifying history in places like Central Africa. For example: "Consider a small sample of heinous cases: in April 2016 Foreign Policy reported that, in the Central African Republic, a French commander tied up four girls and forced them to have sex with a dog. Soldiers from France, Gabon, and Burundi sexually abused at least 108 women and children in a single province. In July 2015, The Washington Post reported that peacekeepers in Haiti engaged in ‘transactional sex’ with over 229 women and girls in exchange for food, medicine, or other necessities. "Most recently, it was published in the The Washington Post in February 2016 that ‘four peacekeepers had allegedly paid girls as young as 13 as little as 50 cents in exchange for sex in a different camp for the internally displaced’ and ‘as many as 14 troops from France, Chad and Equatorial Guinea allegedly raped and sodomised six boys ages nine to 15’." https://www.ibanet.org/article/CEBC5F69-A238-49BB-B85A-5E8D878FE485 https://www.ibanet.org/article/CEBC5F69-A238-49BB-B85A-5E8D8... I'm guessing if one lived in any of the areas mentioned above, the UN would feel about as much like an invading force as just about anything. The UN as a peacekeeping force was a great concept, but it's had a very mixed history when put into practice. But it exists, so many people expect it to be a solution to their problems.
- themitigating 4y ago
  "the Blue Helmets have had a de facto quasi-blanket immunity when committing war crimes, and have some pretty horrifying history" First, I don't think calling them "blue helmets" has the negative connotation you think it does. Second. What's the difference between the UN peacekeepers and any other army? All have a mixed history and I'm pretty sure have let's say a high amount of immunity. People do bad things, especially soldiers who have power and the cover of war. This will never change. Of course crimes should be prosecuted as well but I don't know much about the details of the UN peacekeepers.
  - dsego 4y ago
    During the balkan wars in the 90s people would jokingly call them "smurfs".
  - handedness 4y ago
    As you stated you don't know much about their details, it wasn't meant to be pejorative: they're actually called Blue Helmets (and Blue Berets). I would wager their most defining visual characteristic is their helmet color, which is quite terrible as camouflage and wholly unsuitable for a conventional military force. Their Rules of Engagement are also significantly different from those of a conventional military force. The International Court of Justice (the IJC–not the ICC) is part of the United Nations System. At that body, at least, UN peacekeepers enjoy blanket immunity. To oversimplify it, it's another case of, "we have investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing." The UN nominally expects host countries to prosecute the war crimes of their peacekeepers, but in reality the nature of deploying to somewhere needing peacekeepers is that the rule of law on the ground is already minimal, at best. So there's no real enforcement mechanism to prosecute these crimes. It is not a trivial distinction. One can debate their virtue and utility value one way or the other, but the distinction is real and significant. They operate under a unique set of circumstances and saying war is hell and victors typically enjoy their own brand of immunity is true enough, but not entirely applicable here.
    - pasabagi 4y ago
      Who are we comparing them to, though? The US Military publically ran (and runs) an international network of torture camps. I don't think the US military is especially bad: rather, all militaries are awful, all war is unadulturated evil, and any attempt to make it 'clean' through ROEs or accountability procedures is stupid.
      - handedness 4y ago
        The whole point is that they are without comparison. There is no other force like it in the world. By definition it may have to be that way (if it should exist, which I'm not entirely sure it should), but so long as there are UN peacekeepers there will be armed troops where nobody's really both motivated and able to prosecute their war crimes with any reliability. The legal framework surrounding UN peacekeeping is insufficient as the UN itself grants its peacekeepers blanket immunity, and expects host and/or contributing nations to prosecute war crimes committed by UN peacekeepers. But those nations are almost by definition unable to maintain the rule of law (or in the case of contributing nations, unlikely or unwilling to prosecute). I'm not sure why "but other people also do bad stuff" is where everyone seems to go with that information. But to go along it, a more apt comparison would be the Mahmudiyah rape and killings: war crimes committed by US troops in Iraq, in which the perpetrators were tried, convicted and sentenced in American military and civilian courts. That's how that aspect of the inevitable evils of war should be handled: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_rape_and_killings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_rape_and_killings Had the perpetrators been UN peacekeepers, the host nation likely would not have had the ability to prosecute the accused competently and fairly, and the UN would have given them immunity if expected to act. The contributing nation would not have wanted to prosecute for a whole host of reasons. One can argue that the UN is doing what it can, but it isn't much: Asking contributing nations to prosecute war crimes committed by their citizens (not likely), shaming those nations [1], and trying to support the victims [2]. Which all goes to show that the UN is rather toothless on the matter. There's an asymmetry to their ability to contribute to violence but not prosecute the criminal abuses thereof. I think that's concerning. Regardless, your comparison reminds me that even Abu Ghraib resulted in numerous prison terms. Make of that what you will. [1] https://news.un.org/en/story/2016/01/521142 https://news.un.org/en/story/2016/01/521142 [2] https://conduct.unmissions.org/remedial-trust-fund https://conduct.unmissions.org/remedial-trust-fund
- philippejara 4y ago
  is there no mechanic for them to be prosecuted by the UN itself? as some kind of court-martial or something? Or even their own countries, sounds absolutely insane to expect the judicial system of a country that needs a peacekeeping force to come in to deal with it.
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr... Nuclear powers play by whatever rules they choose to play by.
  - handedness 4y ago
    Right, that's the crux of it. All these other comments saying "[actors] subject to [entity] also did bad things" miss the point. Immunity is supposed to only apply to acts performed in their official capacity, but it in practice it has often been applied much more broadly than that. In fairness to the UN, it's not an easy problem to solve: who's going to volunteer to act as a peacekeeper in a place where if the wrong faction ultimately prevails, you will be subject to the local jurisdiction and all of the corruption that may entail? Unlike military service, UN peacekeepers do not have the same degree of national backing to rely on when things go south.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    There are international agencies that can and in many cases do prosecute. Just Security regularly covers the issue, and are experts in it: https://justsecurity.org https://justsecurity.org
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  You're right of course, but in the context of China and the US this doesn't really seem relevant. Being invaded by UN blue helmets isn't something that happens to any member of the UN Security Council, which both China and the US are. When it comes to relations between these two countries, the UN is "just a forum".
  - handedness 4y ago
    It will sound like I'm arguing against myself, but hear me out: when it comes to relations between these two countries, the UN is a relatively feckless PR platform at best, and not even a forum, despite what numerous aides seem to hopelessly believe (and bless their eager little hearts for it). You're right that their peacekeeping forces are a rounding error for either nation. The original point to which I was replying is that they don't understand why people call on a mere forum to solve their problems. Some regions repeatedly look to UN peacekeepers to solve their problems and so the forum designation is insufficient to describe it. But the UN is oddly violent for a mere forum, some would say immorally so. War crimes are as old as war, but war is war. The UN is this bizarrely unaccountable keeper of peace and rape. And many people really don't understand the UN's modest peacekeeping capabilities and the collateral damage they often bring to a conflict, and often wrongly believe the UN is a silver bullet when it's far from it. I believe that's why people repeatedly think the UN is a solution to problems it mostly isn't. That's the scope of what I was trying to address. My added detail about its structural and fundamental flaw of having no real mechanism for recourse when its troops commit war crimes was just to properly frame what an inherently deficient entity it really is.
  - lovecg 4y ago
    Another function of the UN is to make diplomatic relations between all countries more legible. When everyone is forced to vote yes/no/abstain this information leaks out in a coordinated fashion. Whether that’s good or bad for world peace that’s another matter.
- viscanti 4y ago
  > The UN is certainly something more than that, and not literally just a forum. Maybe it depends if you're a UN member with a veto or not. It's possible that having a veto changes how one would perceive and interact with the UN.
  - handedness 4y ago
    Certainly. Nukes, too.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > Consider a small sample of heinous cases I can cite henious cases committed by London Police force. Just a couple months ago we've convicted 'bastard dave'. He was a cop and used his position to become a serial rapist and a murderer, and he had a nickname, which strongly suggests some of his colleagues knew something. You have to assess three points to understand if the entire organisation is responsoble. Have they commited significantly more warcrimes, than comparable situation suggests is, dreadfull to say, normal? Say during occupation of Iraq? For blue helmets I mean, I hope London police do not think of themselves that way. Can these acts be traced back to some higher level of command, that is either turning a blind eye or is actively encouraging them? When these acts become known, are the perpetrators punished, or are these acts tolerated? I have not studied history of blue helmets, but these are the kind of questions you should be seeking to answer.
  - handedness 4y ago
    It's not about citing heinous cases. You're solving for a different aspect of the problem. Bastard Dave was convicted via an existing enforcement mechanism that in that case was at least arguably functional. The point is if Bastard Dave were a UN peacekeeper in central Africa, the host nation would be unable to try the case, and the UN itself mostly grants its own people blanket immunity and wouldn't prosecute it, either. The rest is a different conversation.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      So typically people from examples you listed get away with it? That's atrocious
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      How is that different from the third point in GP’s?
- UncleEntity 4y ago
  As I always say, you either have warfighters or peacekeepers, not both. I used to be in the 82nd Airborne and the inevitable problems when they got sent on peacekeeping missions in the 90s was no big surprise at all.
- dsego 4y ago
  Don't forget the brave Dutch battalion that protected the civilians of Srebrenica in the secure UN enclave, oh wait, they didn't, they handed them off to Serb forces to be executed.
  - mcv 4y ago
    It was a badly thought out mission that was handed to the wrong unit and didn't receive any of the support it needed. There's no way a light infantry battalion could have defended Srebrenica from Mladic's army. It was theatre based on the hope that Mladic wouldn't attack. While it was a particularly poor showing for a UN mission, and badly handled at every possible level, I don't think it's comparable raping children. It wasn't the UN soldiers who murdered the civilians, they were just completely unable to prevent it, and provided only an illusion of defense.
    - ekanes 4y ago
      All of that might be true, but sometimes, especially if you're a soldier, the right thing to do is die trying.
      - mcv 4y ago
        You want to condemn soldiers to death because everybody else abandoned them?
  - PicassoCTs 4y ago
    Then there were the Nordbats: https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2017/9/20/trigger-happy-autonomous-and-disobedient-nordbat-2-and-mission-command-in-bosnia https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2017/9/20/trigger-h...
    - actionfromafar 4y ago
      AKA Shootbat
      - 4y ago
- soco 4y ago
  The UN peacekeeping force exists only when the states in the forum agree to form one. It's not like "the UN" is sending troops, but a few states - not every UN member mind you - put some troops together, give them blue insignia and send them do the things they agreed in the forum to do.
- PicassoCTs 4y ago
  https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/dec/01/haiti-cholera-outbreak-stain-on-reputation-un-says https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/dec/01/h...
tezza 4y ago
It can provide legal cover for invading countries… Bosnia, Iraq etc. The UN courts can issue judgements… Human Rights Courts: e.g. Slobodan Milosovic, Radavan Kardzich etc A lot of the global treaties are kicked around there They also enforce peace zones (poorly) like Lebanon, Israel demilitarised zone. They coordinate aid programs UNRWA etc
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I don't think legal cover is the right term. My understanding that basically all nations view their domestic laws as higher than the UN. UN decisions are more like a veil or facade of moral Authority
  - credit_guy 4y ago
    I think you might have a typo: "you and decisions" may mean "UN decisions".
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    The UN is a powerful, active international organization. If you aren't aware of that, you don't know what you are talking about. It's certainly limited in many ways and imperfect, but it transforms international affairs, freedom, and human rights. Ignorant, cynical claims on the the Internet do a lot of harm to real people, by tearing down valuable things that people need.
  - xpe 4y ago
    > UN decisions are more like a veil or facade of moral Authority Not so; "veil" or "facade" implies fakeness or concealment. The U.N. does not hide its mission or its position on human rights. > One of the great achievements of the United Nations is the creation of a comprehensive body of human rights law—a universal and internationally protected code to which all nations can subscribe and all people aspire. The United Nations has defined a broad range of internationally accepted rights, including civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights. It has also established mechanisms to promote and protect these rights and to assist states in carrying out their responsibilities. [1] The lack of consensus and consistency is an ongoing challenge, sure, but it doesn't make the goals fake. Countries are flawed and have competing interests, but it is important to nudge the world in a better direction. [1] https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/human-rights https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/human-rights
phpisthebest 4y ago
[flagged]
- wiml 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - braingenious 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - awwaiid 4y ago
        Looked it up. In 2020 we spent $2bn on the UN. We brought in $3421bn, so (ignoring that we overspent by 2x) that is like 0.06%. if you make $100k you pay like $18k in federal tax. So that comes out to $10.50 or so.
      - neodymiumphish 4y ago
        This is such a pedantic and unnecessary line of questioning. Based on my understanding of the federal budget, my contribution to the UN last year would be somewhere between $100 and $200. Why are you and the other GP asking about individual contributions? Isn't that more than enough to be irritated with their existence or capacities? $150/year is a significant amount that I'd definitely rather not pay. This is based on one estimate that 1.2% of the federal budget was for the UN. Another estimate says 11.2b in 2020, when the federal budget was 4.79t. That estimate knocks my contribution significantly lower (anywhere from $10-40).
        braingenious 4y ago
        >Why are you and the other GP asking about individual contributions? Curiosity for me! Out of (further) curiosity, what makes a post on this website “unnecessary” vs (I’m assuming) “necessary”?
rmk 4y ago
This is misinformed. The UN does take a lot of 'actions', one of the most important ones being Peackeeping missions. The explicit mission of the UN is to avert violent conflict. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter
backtoyoujim 4y ago
/derail
- kidme5 4y ago
  Feels like intentional bury. The OP about Space Development Agency is a big deal.
00kevn 4y ago
I just went on a ride about how the UN UN-Nazi'd the world
nwatson 4y ago
UN World Food Programme. Absolutely meaningful. Some other humanitarian coordination too.
ShredKazoo 4y ago
It's interesting to me that this has become such a common internet talking point. A while ago, I finished reading a history of the UN (the one by Stanley Meisler), and I definitely got the impression that the founders of the UN wanted it to be more than just a forum. E.g. here are some passages I hilighted from Chapter 1: "Americans could envision the Soviet Union joining the United States in policing the peace in the brighter new world that would arise from the carnage [of WW2]" (page 2) "The Soviet ambassador... was even stronger than the others in pleading for a security council with teeth" (page 9) "Chopping the air with his hands to emphasize his words, Truman said the new UN must keep the world 'free from the fear of war'." (page 19) More generally the ongoing theme of the book is the extent to which the UN has been successful, and unsuccessful, at ensuring world peace in various conflicts that have flared since its founding. I did get the impression that not a lot of thought was put into the design of the UN, and there is the possibility that it could've been much more successful with a radically different design. [Edit: To be more concrete -- Google tells me that global military spending was $2.1 trillion in 2021. You'd think it would be worth putting a mere 1% of that $2.1 trillion, something like $21 billion, into essay competitions, agent-based simulations, online diplomacy games, academic literature reviews, etc. in order to design an optimal UN structure that minimizes the risk of war. But the actual structure of the UN was designed using far, far less than $21 billion worth of analysis, based on what I recall from the Meisler book.] That's not to say that the UN being a forum is bad or unnecessary. But it's interesting to me how everyone seems to have forgotten its original eutopian aspiration to create a world free from war. Maybe has something to do with the fact that people who lived through WW2 are mostly dead now, and few living people understand at a visceral level how horrifying war between great powers really is.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- nl 4y ago
  > It's interesting to me that this has become such a common internet talking point. A while ago, I finished reading a history of the UN (the one by Stanley Meisler), and I definitely got the impression that the founders of the UN wanted it to be more than just a forum. It's worth thinking about this context when considering the Korean War when it was UNC (UN Command) that was the primary defense force: https://www.unc.mil/History/1950-1953-Korean-War-Active-Conflict/ https://www.unc.mil/History/1950-1953-Korean-War-Active-Conf...
GeekyBear 4y ago
> UN is literally just a forum for countries to meet and discuss matters. Article 43 of the UN Charter would, if it were ever implemented, create a military force under the control of the UN Security Council. >The potential of the United Nations and its Charter remained a dominant subject in schools and communities into the 1950s, focused especially on those Charter promises to protect member states "against violators of the peace." Chapter VII dealt with enforcement action: Article 39 first authorized the Security Council to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression"; Article 42 was designed to respond with "air, sea or land forces as may be necessary"; and Article 43 committed all UN member states "to make available to the Security Council, on its call, armed forces, assistance, facilities, including rights of passage necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security." Although much hope for the future was placed in the ratification of Article 43, it was never implemented. https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA514849456&sid=sitemap&v=2.1&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7E35a4e14b https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA514849456&sid=sitemap...
wolverine876 4y ago
The UN Security Council especially, and other organs, have singificant influence for setting and enforcing interntional law. The UN also handles much more than military missions, including health, technical coordination, and much more.
dx034 4y ago
And they are able to get leaders/delegates from nearly all countries in a room regularly. That alone can be crucial.

handedness 4y ago

The UN is certainly something more than that, and not literally just a forum. They have an active duty peacekeeping force of approximately 81K people. While that's similar in size to the active duty forces from a nation like a Peru or Chile, the Blue Helmets have had a de facto quasi-blanket immunity when committing war crimes, and have some pretty horrifying history in places like Central Africa. For example: "Consider a small sample of heinous cases: in April 2016 Foreign Policy reported that, in the Central African Republic, a French commander tied up four girls and forced them to have sex with a dog. Soldiers from France, Gabon, and Burundi sexually abused at least 108 women and children in a single province. In July 2015, The Washington Post reported that peacekeepers in Haiti engaged in ‘transactional sex’ with over 229 women and girls in exchange for food, medicine, or other necessities. "Most recently, it was published in the The Washington Post in February 2016 that ‘four peacekeepers had allegedly paid girls as young as 13 as little as 50 cents in exchange for sex in a different camp for the internally displaced’ and ‘as many as 14 troops from France, Chad and Equatorial Guinea allegedly raped and sodomised six boys ages nine to 15’." https://www.ibanet.org/article/CEBC5F69-A238-49BB-B85A-5E8D878FE485 https://www.ibanet.org/article/CEBC5F69-A238-49BB-B85A-5E8D8... I'm guessing if one lived in any of the areas mentioned above, the UN would feel about as much like an invading force as just about anything. The UN as a peacekeeping force was a great concept, but it's had a very mixed history when put into practice. But it exists, so many people expect it to be a solution to their problems.

themitigating 4y ago
"the Blue Helmets have had a de facto quasi-blanket immunity when committing war crimes, and have some pretty horrifying history" First, I don't think calling them "blue helmets" has the negative connotation you think it does. Second. What's the difference between the UN peacekeepers and any other army? All have a mixed history and I'm pretty sure have let's say a high amount of immunity. People do bad things, especially soldiers who have power and the cover of war. This will never change. Of course crimes should be prosecuted as well but I don't know much about the details of the UN peacekeepers.
- dsego 4y ago
  During the balkan wars in the 90s people would jokingly call them "smurfs".
- handedness 4y ago
  As you stated you don't know much about their details, it wasn't meant to be pejorative: they're actually called Blue Helmets (and Blue Berets). I would wager their most defining visual characteristic is their helmet color, which is quite terrible as camouflage and wholly unsuitable for a conventional military force. Their Rules of Engagement are also significantly different from those of a conventional military force. The International Court of Justice (the IJC–not the ICC) is part of the United Nations System. At that body, at least, UN peacekeepers enjoy blanket immunity. To oversimplify it, it's another case of, "we have investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing." The UN nominally expects host countries to prosecute the war crimes of their peacekeepers, but in reality the nature of deploying to somewhere needing peacekeepers is that the rule of law on the ground is already minimal, at best. So there's no real enforcement mechanism to prosecute these crimes. It is not a trivial distinction. One can debate their virtue and utility value one way or the other, but the distinction is real and significant. They operate under a unique set of circumstances and saying war is hell and victors typically enjoy their own brand of immunity is true enough, but not entirely applicable here.
  - pasabagi 4y ago
    Who are we comparing them to, though? The US Military publically ran (and runs) an international network of torture camps. I don't think the US military is especially bad: rather, all militaries are awful, all war is unadulturated evil, and any attempt to make it 'clean' through ROEs or accountability procedures is stupid.
    - handedness 4y ago
      The whole point is that they are without comparison. There is no other force like it in the world. By definition it may have to be that way (if it should exist, which I'm not entirely sure it should), but so long as there are UN peacekeepers there will be armed troops where nobody's really both motivated and able to prosecute their war crimes with any reliability. The legal framework surrounding UN peacekeeping is insufficient as the UN itself grants its peacekeepers blanket immunity, and expects host and/or contributing nations to prosecute war crimes committed by UN peacekeepers. But those nations are almost by definition unable to maintain the rule of law (or in the case of contributing nations, unlikely or unwilling to prosecute). I'm not sure why "but other people also do bad stuff" is where everyone seems to go with that information. But to go along it, a more apt comparison would be the Mahmudiyah rape and killings: war crimes committed by US troops in Iraq, in which the perpetrators were tried, convicted and sentenced in American military and civilian courts. That's how that aspect of the inevitable evils of war should be handled: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_rape_and_killings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_rape_and_killings Had the perpetrators been UN peacekeepers, the host nation likely would not have had the ability to prosecute the accused competently and fairly, and the UN would have given them immunity if expected to act. The contributing nation would not have wanted to prosecute for a whole host of reasons. One can argue that the UN is doing what it can, but it isn't much: Asking contributing nations to prosecute war crimes committed by their citizens (not likely), shaming those nations [1], and trying to support the victims [2]. Which all goes to show that the UN is rather toothless on the matter. There's an asymmetry to their ability to contribute to violence but not prosecute the criminal abuses thereof. I think that's concerning. Regardless, your comparison reminds me that even Abu Ghraib resulted in numerous prison terms. Make of that what you will. [1] https://news.un.org/en/story/2016/01/521142 https://news.un.org/en/story/2016/01/521142 [2] https://conduct.unmissions.org/remedial-trust-fund https://conduct.unmissions.org/remedial-trust-fund
philippejara 4y ago
is there no mechanic for them to be prosecuted by the UN itself? as some kind of court-martial or something? Or even their own countries, sounds absolutely insane to expect the judicial system of a country that needs a peacekeeping force to come in to deal with it.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr... Nuclear powers play by whatever rules they choose to play by.
- handedness 4y ago
  Right, that's the crux of it. All these other comments saying "[actors] subject to [entity] also did bad things" miss the point. Immunity is supposed to only apply to acts performed in their official capacity, but it in practice it has often been applied much more broadly than that. In fairness to the UN, it's not an easy problem to solve: who's going to volunteer to act as a peacekeeper in a place where if the wrong faction ultimately prevails, you will be subject to the local jurisdiction and all of the corruption that may entail? Unlike military service, UN peacekeepers do not have the same degree of national backing to rely on when things go south.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  There are international agencies that can and in many cases do prosecute. Just Security regularly covers the issue, and are experts in it: https://justsecurity.org https://justsecurity.org
LarryMullins 4y ago
You're right of course, but in the context of China and the US this doesn't really seem relevant. Being invaded by UN blue helmets isn't something that happens to any member of the UN Security Council, which both China and the US are. When it comes to relations between these two countries, the UN is "just a forum".
- handedness 4y ago
  It will sound like I'm arguing against myself, but hear me out: when it comes to relations between these two countries, the UN is a relatively feckless PR platform at best, and not even a forum, despite what numerous aides seem to hopelessly believe (and bless their eager little hearts for it). You're right that their peacekeeping forces are a rounding error for either nation. The original point to which I was replying is that they don't understand why people call on a mere forum to solve their problems. Some regions repeatedly look to UN peacekeepers to solve their problems and so the forum designation is insufficient to describe it. But the UN is oddly violent for a mere forum, some would say immorally so. War crimes are as old as war, but war is war. The UN is this bizarrely unaccountable keeper of peace and rape. And many people really don't understand the UN's modest peacekeeping capabilities and the collateral damage they often bring to a conflict, and often wrongly believe the UN is a silver bullet when it's far from it. I believe that's why people repeatedly think the UN is a solution to problems it mostly isn't. That's the scope of what I was trying to address. My added detail about its structural and fundamental flaw of having no real mechanism for recourse when its troops commit war crimes was just to properly frame what an inherently deficient entity it really is.
- lovecg 4y ago
  Another function of the UN is to make diplomatic relations between all countries more legible. When everyone is forced to vote yes/no/abstain this information leaks out in a coordinated fashion. Whether that’s good or bad for world peace that’s another matter.
viscanti 4y ago
> The UN is certainly something more than that, and not literally just a forum. Maybe it depends if you're a UN member with a veto or not. It's possible that having a veto changes how one would perceive and interact with the UN.
- handedness 4y ago
  Certainly. Nukes, too.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> Consider a small sample of heinous cases I can cite henious cases committed by London Police force. Just a couple months ago we've convicted 'bastard dave'. He was a cop and used his position to become a serial rapist and a murderer, and he had a nickname, which strongly suggests some of his colleagues knew something. You have to assess three points to understand if the entire organisation is responsoble. Have they commited significantly more warcrimes, than comparable situation suggests is, dreadfull to say, normal? Say during occupation of Iraq? For blue helmets I mean, I hope London police do not think of themselves that way. Can these acts be traced back to some higher level of command, that is either turning a blind eye or is actively encouraging them? When these acts become known, are the perpetrators punished, or are these acts tolerated? I have not studied history of blue helmets, but these are the kind of questions you should be seeking to answer.
- handedness 4y ago
  It's not about citing heinous cases. You're solving for a different aspect of the problem. Bastard Dave was convicted via an existing enforcement mechanism that in that case was at least arguably functional. The point is if Bastard Dave were a UN peacekeeper in central Africa, the host nation would be unable to try the case, and the UN itself mostly grants its own people blanket immunity and wouldn't prosecute it, either. The rest is a different conversation.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    So typically people from examples you listed get away with it? That's atrocious
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    How is that different from the third point in GP’s?
UncleEntity 4y ago
As I always say, you either have warfighters or peacekeepers, not both. I used to be in the 82nd Airborne and the inevitable problems when they got sent on peacekeeping missions in the 90s was no big surprise at all.
dsego 4y ago
Don't forget the brave Dutch battalion that protected the civilians of Srebrenica in the secure UN enclave, oh wait, they didn't, they handed them off to Serb forces to be executed.
- mcv 4y ago
  It was a badly thought out mission that was handed to the wrong unit and didn't receive any of the support it needed. There's no way a light infantry battalion could have defended Srebrenica from Mladic's army. It was theatre based on the hope that Mladic wouldn't attack. While it was a particularly poor showing for a UN mission, and badly handled at every possible level, I don't think it's comparable raping children. It wasn't the UN soldiers who murdered the civilians, they were just completely unable to prevent it, and provided only an illusion of defense.
  - ekanes 4y ago
    All of that might be true, but sometimes, especially if you're a soldier, the right thing to do is die trying.
    - mcv 4y ago
      You want to condemn soldiers to death because everybody else abandoned them?
- PicassoCTs 4y ago
  Then there were the Nordbats: https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2017/9/20/trigger-happy-autonomous-and-disobedient-nordbat-2-and-mission-command-in-bosnia https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2017/9/20/trigger-h...
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    AKA Shootbat
    - 4y ago
soco 4y ago
The UN peacekeeping force exists only when the states in the forum agree to form one. It's not like "the UN" is sending troops, but a few states - not every UN member mind you - put some troops together, give them blue insignia and send them do the things they agreed in the forum to do.
PicassoCTs 4y ago
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/dec/01/haiti-cholera-outbreak-stain-on-reputation-un-says https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/dec/01/h...

tezza 4y ago

It can provide legal cover for invading countries… Bosnia, Iraq etc. The UN courts can issue judgements… Human Rights Courts: e.g. Slobodan Milosovic, Radavan Kardzich etc A lot of the global treaties are kicked around there They also enforce peace zones (poorly) like Lebanon, Israel demilitarised zone. They coordinate aid programs UNRWA etc

s1artibartfast 4y ago
I don't think legal cover is the right term. My understanding that basically all nations view their domestic laws as higher than the UN. UN decisions are more like a veil or facade of moral Authority
- credit_guy 4y ago
  I think you might have a typo: "you and decisions" may mean "UN decisions".
- wolverine876 4y ago
  The UN is a powerful, active international organization. If you aren't aware of that, you don't know what you are talking about. It's certainly limited in many ways and imperfect, but it transforms international affairs, freedom, and human rights. Ignorant, cynical claims on the the Internet do a lot of harm to real people, by tearing down valuable things that people need.
- xpe 4y ago
  > UN decisions are more like a veil or facade of moral Authority Not so; "veil" or "facade" implies fakeness or concealment. The U.N. does not hide its mission or its position on human rights. > One of the great achievements of the United Nations is the creation of a comprehensive body of human rights law—a universal and internationally protected code to which all nations can subscribe and all people aspire. The United Nations has defined a broad range of internationally accepted rights, including civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights. It has also established mechanisms to promote and protect these rights and to assist states in carrying out their responsibilities. [1] The lack of consensus and consistency is an ongoing challenge, sure, but it doesn't make the goals fake. Countries are flawed and have competing interests, but it is important to nudge the world in a better direction. [1] https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/human-rights https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/human-rights

phpisthebest 4y ago

[flagged]

wiml 4y ago
[flagged]
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - braingenious 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - awwaiid 4y ago
      Looked it up. In 2020 we spent $2bn on the UN. We brought in $3421bn, so (ignoring that we overspent by 2x) that is like 0.06%. if you make $100k you pay like $18k in federal tax. So that comes out to $10.50 or so.
    - neodymiumphish 4y ago
      This is such a pedantic and unnecessary line of questioning. Based on my understanding of the federal budget, my contribution to the UN last year would be somewhere between $100 and $200. Why are you and the other GP asking about individual contributions? Isn't that more than enough to be irritated with their existence or capacities? $150/year is a significant amount that I'd definitely rather not pay. This is based on one estimate that 1.2% of the federal budget was for the UN. Another estimate says 11.2b in 2020, when the federal budget was 4.79t. That estimate knocks my contribution significantly lower (anywhere from $10-40).
      - braingenious 4y ago
        >Why are you and the other GP asking about individual contributions? Curiosity for me! Out of (further) curiosity, what makes a post on this website “unnecessary” vs (I’m assuming) “necessary”?

rmk 4y ago

This is misinformed. The UN does take a lot of 'actions', one of the most important ones being Peackeeping missions. The explicit mission of the UN is to avert violent conflict. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter

backtoyoujim 4y ago

/derail

kidme5 4y ago
Feels like intentional bury. The OP about Space Development Agency is a big deal.

00kevn 4y ago

I just went on a ride about how the UN UN-Nazi'd the world

nwatson 4y ago

UN World Food Programme. Absolutely meaningful. Some other humanitarian coordination too.

ShredKazoo 4y ago

It's interesting to me that this has become such a common internet talking point. A while ago, I finished reading a history of the UN (the one by Stanley Meisler), and I definitely got the impression that the founders of the UN wanted it to be more than just a forum. E.g. here are some passages I hilighted from Chapter 1: "Americans could envision the Soviet Union joining the United States in policing the peace in the brighter new world that would arise from the carnage [of WW2]" (page 2) "The Soviet ambassador... was even stronger than the others in pleading for a security council with teeth" (page 9) "Chopping the air with his hands to emphasize his words, Truman said the new UN must keep the world 'free from the fear of war'." (page 19) More generally the ongoing theme of the book is the extent to which the UN has been successful, and unsuccessful, at ensuring world peace in various conflicts that have flared since its founding. I did get the impression that not a lot of thought was put into the design of the UN, and there is the possibility that it could've been much more successful with a radically different design. [Edit: To be more concrete -- Google tells me that global military spending was $2.1 trillion in 2021. You'd think it would be worth putting a mere 1% of that $2.1 trillion, something like $21 billion, into essay competitions, agent-based simulations, online diplomacy games, academic literature reviews, etc. in order to design an optimal UN structure that minimizes the risk of war. But the actual structure of the UN was designed using far, far less than $21 billion worth of analysis, based on what I recall from the Meisler book.] That's not to say that the UN being a forum is bad or unnecessary. But it's interesting to me how everyone seems to have forgotten its original eutopian aspiration to create a world free from war. Maybe has something to do with the fact that people who lived through WW2 are mostly dead now, and few living people understand at a visceral level how horrifying war between great powers really is.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nl 4y ago
> It's interesting to me that this has become such a common internet talking point. A while ago, I finished reading a history of the UN (the one by Stanley Meisler), and I definitely got the impression that the founders of the UN wanted it to be more than just a forum. It's worth thinking about this context when considering the Korean War when it was UNC (UN Command) that was the primary defense force: https://www.unc.mil/History/1950-1953-Korean-War-Active-Conflict/ https://www.unc.mil/History/1950-1953-Korean-War-Active-Conf...

GeekyBear 4y ago

> UN is literally just a forum for countries to meet and discuss matters. Article 43 of the UN Charter would, if it were ever implemented, create a military force under the control of the UN Security Council. >The potential of the United Nations and its Charter remained a dominant subject in schools and communities into the 1950s, focused especially on those Charter promises to protect member states "against violators of the peace." Chapter VII dealt with enforcement action: Article 39 first authorized the Security Council to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression"; Article 42 was designed to respond with "air, sea or land forces as may be necessary"; and Article 43 committed all UN member states "to make available to the Security Council, on its call, armed forces, assistance, facilities, including rights of passage necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security." Although much hope for the future was placed in the ratification of Article 43, it was never implemented. https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA514849456&sid=sitemap&v=2.1&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7E35a4e14b https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA514849456&sid=sitemap...

wolverine876 4y ago

The UN Security Council especially, and other organs, have singificant influence for setting and enforcing interntional law. The UN also handles much more than military missions, including health, technical coordination, and much more.

dx034 4y ago

And they are able to get leaders/delegates from nearly all countries in a room regularly. That alone can be crucial.