Dear Rodger,
My name is Mark Loggie, and I would like to thank you for the opportunity to be able to ask you this: What do you believe is more important? For peacekeeping and U.N. forces to be neutral in approaching a situation or to be more aggressive toward whatever side of the conflict they deem the aggressor? Is it more important to quash the instigator, or to maintain the status quo in the intrest of peace?
1 comment:
Roger was unable to post, so he e-mailed this to me instead.
So Mark the questions you have asked is debated in practically every Political arena throughout the globe. When is "Force" justified? First let me give you a short briefing on the United Nations? It was created after WWII (replacing the disbanded League of Nations that was deemed a failure)to provide a Forum where Nations could meet on Neutral ground and attempt to resolve conflicts in a "Peaceful Manner" using dialogue versus Force. Participating Member States do not lose their "Sovereignty" by being a Member of the UN. A Nation is supposed to have the choice of resolving its own problems. When it threatens other states or for other legitimate reasons the UN can step in. You might want to look up the role one of our Canadians (Lester B. Pearson) played in its creation. Remember all of the above as the basis on any argument for the use of or against the use of Force. As you are aware the UN is made up of the Security Council (France, China, Britain, Russia and the USA as Permanent Members with individual Veto Powers), the General Assembly (All other Nations who have "voluntarily" joined the UN) and the Secretariat. Most people think that the Secretary General (now Ban Ke Moon) can just make decisions on behalf of the UN and it happens. Although very influential he in fact has no Executive Powers. Also misleading is that some folks think that the Troops sent out on Missions are like a UN Army. UN Troops on Mission are provided by Member States that are called TCC (Troop Contributing Countries). They are Multi-Nationals brought under the Command of one (1) General to be Force Commander picked by the Member States. When the Security Council decides to step in it draws up a Resolution and provides a Mission Mandate. This is an EXTREMELY long and difficult process at times. Politics plays a tremendous role in determining a Mission. It will then give the Mission its role in any given Country. The top Mandate given is what we call a Chapter VII. All others are reduced capabilities in the sense of the use of Force. Our Mission (MONUC - Mission de l'Organization des Nations Unies au Congo) is a Chapter VII Mission. Along with the Mandate they give us ROEs (Rules of Engagement). This describes to the letter our limitations on the use of Force. Let me go back to the Mandate? a Mandate can either be Political, Conflict Resolution, Peacekeeping or Peacemaking. I hope you can see the difference especially in the last two descriptions. Another name for Peacemaking is to provide an Expeditionary Force. Under cover of a UN authority this type is the most combative. On another note, nobody who has ever seen or gone to war for the most part does not want to do it again. It ain't like the movies. One of the worst consequences of using Force is that it is the Civilian Population that suffers the most. For practically every soldier or rebel who dies there are an average of ten (10) civilians who pay the price. Our Mandate in the DRC is very clear - Protect Civilians and Protect UN Staff Members. However, they are also to "SUPPORT"the FARDC (Forces Armees de la Republique Democratique du Congo). We are not supposed to "start" a fight? However, if the FARDC go against the rebels we are supposed to assist them in their "legitimate fight". Again however, we are not constrained to "shoot first" when it meets our ROEs? No ennemy should ever believe that wanting to negotiate should be thought of as being too weak to fight? Never threaten an ennemy if you are not prepared to act upon your threat? A bluff may only work if you are playing Poker?? However, our Leadership must always be conscious of what I stated above - the adverse effect of war upon innocent civilians. We will negotiate until it is exceptionally clear that the ennemy will only understand Force? We will use Force in the Protection of the Population. TCCs must have the Political Will to send their troops to a Mission and have the conviction that the troops they send may die? I hope that I have answered your question? I myself do not ascribe to the indiscriminate use of Force. Good Luck in your studies.
Post a Comment