# UN General Assembly splits peacekeeping into 2 departments



## McG (30 Jun 2007)

> UN General Assembly splits peacekeeping into 2 departments in victory for Ban
> 29/06/2007 8:33:00 PM
> 
> UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The UN General Assembly divided peacekeeping into two departments Friday, a victory for Secretary General Ban Ki-moon after months of negotiations to overhaul management of the overburdened operations.
> ...


 http://news.sympatico.msn.ca/World/ContentPosting.aspx?feedname=CP-WORLD&newsitemid=50217030


----------



## Pikache (30 Jun 2007)

In other words, UN peacekeeping just got more bureaucratic and less responsive.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jun 2007)

HighlandFusilier said:
			
		

> In other words, UN peacekeeping just got more bureaucratic and less responsive.



Maybe.

At the end of last year Ruxted said: *"Canada invested treasure, political capital and lives in UN Peacekeeping. Canadians want UN Peacekeeping to succeed. More of the Annan/Baril method will, in Ruxted’s view, guarantee failure. Failure will further tarnish the UN’s reputation for ineptitude and will cause members to focus on systemic inefficiency, ineffectiveness and corruption."*  I cannot imagine anyone or any 'system' being more corrupt or inept than Kofi Annan and his _regime_ - and, yes, I still include retired CDS Maurice Baril in that unhappy little band.

I fear it will do little to make _operational_ planning, control and management any better but there *might* be some hope for reducing some of the waste and mismanagement in support functions.


----------



## Exarecr (30 Jun 2007)

Thank you folks for supplying my morning with great bellows of laughter. Two peacekeeping departments indeed. Translation. Department No.1 would be of the type Taliban Jack would embrace,as well as most  Canadians. It would involve Canadian peacekeepers in those nifty  shorts and black sock outfits the Forces supplied the short lived peacekeeping operation in 75 in Vietnam. I will never forget how ridiculous these guys looked(never mind how they must have felt), jumping off those helicopters in those Dudley dooright uniforms. Dept No.1 would of course be unarmed, thus, coupled with those nifty uniforms a more non aggressive sight line. We would then sit down the warring parties and regale them with our well known fighting abilities of wars way over and long forgotten. This would leave them shaking in their boots (or laughing hysterically). While they are distracted by those clever Canucks those in Department No.2 would take over the broadcasting of the offending Country and start playing Beechcomer reruns until they decide to end hostilities. I am positive peace would be immediate. Cheers, time to go. Adventures in Rainbow Country starts shortly.


----------



## Journeyman (30 Jun 2007)

It's not actually rationalized into two, but three bureaucracies, since the Department of Pork-barrelling "Management" is still in the picture. Their role is to ensure that procurement for peace ops is "fair," meaning that developing countries get first offer. Since they can not provide anything required, they then get paid to allow countries capable of supplying missions do so.  :

As for dividing DPKO into two fiefdoms to create greater efficiency....headed by equal-ranked Directors.....both imbued with the desire to be Secretary-General (having absorbed the cash-cow mentality that _is_ the UN permanent staff).....well, to quote Al Pachino in _Scent of a Woman_, "I’d take a flamethrower to this place." Although the lower-level staffers will make it work to its lowest common denominator, those two Directorates are structurally predisposed to _not_ play well together.

While I tend to agree with many of Ruxted's musings, reiterating that "Canadians want UN Peacekeeping to succeed," is really a non-issue; many Canadians also want the Leafs to win the Cup, or think NDP policies are feasible/rational. As for Annan/Baril.....Ruxted didn't give Baril half the thrashing he deserved for his complicity in the Rwandan genocide.  


Just so there's no misunderstanding, I'm not a fan of the Leafs, NDP, or the UN.


----------



## Greymatters (30 Jun 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Failure will further tarnish the UN’s reputation for ineptitude...



I really dont see how their reputation can get much more tarnished...


----------



## cameron (30 Jun 2007)

Why is it that bureaucrats think that the best way to solve a problem is to add another layer of bureaucracy?  But then again, maybe that's why they're called bureaucrats ???


----------



## McG (30 Jun 2007)

HighlandFusilier said:
			
		

> In other words, UN peacekeeping just got more bureaucratic and less responsive.


Really?  It sounds like the UN has done exactly what we have done with the creation of our operational commands.


----------



## Greymatters (30 Jun 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> Really?  It sounds like the UN has done exactly what we have done with the creation of our operational commands.



Now THAT sounds interesting.  

It happened just as I was getting out (If your refereing to the recent changes and not the ones in 1996-1997).   Has operational commands improved the system or made it worse?  I thought it would make the system more cumbersone and confusing than it already was, but wasnt able to stick around and find out firsthand.


----------



## Journeyman (1 Jul 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> *It sounds like the UN has done exactly what we have done with the creation of our operational commands.*


As a theoretical model, perhaps. But if one takes reality into account -- the start state of bureaucratic ineptitude -- we're not talking, even remotely, the same subject.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (1 Jul 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> Really?  It sounds like the UN has done exactly what we have done with the creation of our operational commands.



You got more detail out of the article than I did then....

The only thing I read in the last couple of paragraphs was a stated concern by countries about how this was going to affect the distribution of graft....I mean procurement.


Matthew.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Jul 2007)

Just another level of colon clogging, ineffectual bureaucracy to add to the total fallacy of the UN as an organisation for world change, democracy and diplomacy. Just another chance to put 200-400 family, friends and business partners on the world graft/bribe/extortion system collecting untold and untraceable dollars from one of the most corrupt organisations this side of the Russian Mafia.


----------



## The Gues-|- (1 Jul 2007)

Logic ends, where the Army begins.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Jul 2007)

The Guess:  The Army has got nuffink on this lot.........

I went to the UN site and was told to click on this link http://www.un.org/aboutun/chart.html to get the Organization Chart.

Top marks to anyone who can find who is in charge.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Jun 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> It's not actually rationalized into two, but three bureaucracies, since the Department of Pork-barrelling "Management" is still in the picture. Their role is to ensure that procurement for peace ops is "fair," meaning that developing countries get first offer. Since they can not provide anything required, they then get paid to allow countries capable of supplying missions do so.  :
> 
> As for dividing DPKO into two fiefdoms to create greater efficiency....headed by equal-ranked Directors.....both imbued with the desire to be Secretary-General (having absorbed the cash-cow mentality that _is_ the UN permanent staff).....well, to quote Al Pachino in _Scent of a Woman_, "I’d take a flamethrower to this place." Although the lower-level staffers will make it work to its lowest common denominator, those two Directorates are structurally predisposed to _not_ play well together.
> 
> ...




Colum Lynch reports, in this article which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Foreign Policy_, that some (much?) of the corruption - which is surely very real and well documented - in the UN is there to protect [pcolor=red]Russian[/color] commercial interests and that those commercial interests can count on President Putin to push their case, personally:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/06/25/the_inside_story_of_russias_fight_to_keep_the_un_corrupt


> The Inside Story of Russia's Fight to Keep the U.N. Corrupt
> *From bullying out reformers to blocking efforts to save millions.*
> 
> BY COLUM LYNCH
> ...




I do not, not even for a _µ_second believe UN spokesman's Kieran Dwyer's asurance that "The secretariat has a system of management checks and balances that mean that no one individual can unilaterally set the procurement specifications for aviation requirements," [even though] "it is true that helicopters from the Mi-8 family of aircraft do play a leading role in peacekeeping aviation assets and operations." He suggests that the UN favours Russian helicopters because they "have key features which make them suitable to peacekeeping needs, including their flying range and payload capacities and the fact that they are economical."

I worked with around and despite the UN administration one one mission, it's not something I would care to repeat. There were, in my experience, *some* good, even excellent individuals in the field and in New York but the system was corrupt, even then - I'm talking decades in the past, and badly managed at higher levels.  Later I worked extensively with one Geneva based UN member agency. It had a very well qualified technical staff but they, and capable administrators, too, were kept busy fighting off interference from New York. It was funny, in a way, that over the past few years (until 2009) one of the key leaders of that particular agency and one of the folks who fought hardest against New York's influence, Valery Timofeev, was a Russian.


----------

