3 ms·

"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

"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

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