Dallaire: Peacekeeping has failed

[Cloud Cover]

Well ... duuuuhhh. Even a liberal can figure that out ...

Reproduced from cbc.ca under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



Peacekeeping has 'failed' in this era, says Dallaire
Last Updated: Thursday, September 28, 2006 | 12:01 PM ET
CBC News
Senator Romeo Dallaire, the retired Canadian general who led the ill-fated United Nations force during the genocide in Rwanda, says the concept of peacekeeping has disappeared in this new era of warfare.

"The concept of peacekeeping has failed in this era. The Canadian army hasn't been in peacekeeping for the last 15 years," said Dallaire, who spoke at the University of Saskatchewan Wednesday, said the Saskatoon StarPhoenix.



Retired general Romeo Dallaire displays the Pearson Peace Medal he received in March 2005.
(Fred Chartrand/Canadian Press)
Warfare is no longer country against country, he said during the lecture, which was sponsored by the university's law faculty.

Wars now deal with tribalism, ethnicity and economics, said Dallaire.

He pointed to the 1993-1994 UN peacekeeping mission in Rwanda as a failure of peacekeeping. Rwanda's International Criminal Tribunal has concluded 800,000 to one million Tutsis and Hutu moderates were killed by Hutu extremists during the massacre.

UN forces must follow strict international laws while rebel forces don't, said Dallaire.

"They don't play by these rules. We do, and our greatest threat is when we stop doing so," Dallaire said.

Dallaire, who said the world needs a leader to usher in a new era of global justice, criticized Canada for ignoring the humanitarian crisis in Darfur.

He also offered support for the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, saying the country must follow through with its commitment and accept that there will be casualties.

 

[Journeyman]

UN forces must follow strict international laws while rebel forces don't, said Dallaire.
"They don't play by these rules. We do, and our greatest threat is when we stop doing so," Dallaire said.

Dallaire......criticized Canada for ignoring the humanitarian crisis in Darfur.

I know it's been pointed out repeatedly.... but still he states that any UN mission must adhere to the rule of law, while calling for intervention in Darfur.

Darfur, folks, is a region within a country that has specifically and repeatedly refused UN troops. Sending soldiers to Darfur amounts to invading a sovereign nation. That, Romeo, is illegal. Come down off that pedestal - - you can't argue it both ways in the same speech.

He also offered support for the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, saying the country must follow through with its commitment and accept that there will be casualties.

Now that's a change of tune. He must have seen the opinion polls that show Canadian's actually SUPPORTING CF troops in Afghanistan.  :

I used to truly respect and admire him when he was my brigade commander. But respect must be earned, and he's definitely squandered it, letting politics run rampant over the common sense he once displayed. 

 

[3rd Horseman]

Oh no not that guy again, can we not just ignore Dallaire. The only peacekeeping mission that has truly failed has been his. The past 15 years have been truly the reemergence of the pure peacekeeping missions culminating with the UN authorized peacekeeping mission in A Stan which from my perspective has been the best lead and best executed of all the missions of late. With A Stan the paradime shift has fully come into effect and we are at the original intention of the concept of the UN and our fighting forces would have made Lester B very proud.

 

[Meridian]

Isnt the mission in Aghan more of a peacemaking/peacestabilizing/peacedeveloping mission, ratherthan keeping?

Keeping to the general citizen means holding on to something that is already there.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Isnt the mission in Aghan more of a peacemaking/peacestabilizing/peacedeveloping mission, ratherthan keeping?

Keeping to the general citizen means holding on to something that is already there.

Actually, its a war on an extremist religious ideology rather than on a nation-state in the Westphalian sense. There is no peace_____ anything in this one.

 

[3rd Horseman]

Isnt the mission in Aghan more of a peacemaking/peacestabilizing/peacedeveloping mission, ratherthan keeping?

That is what PeaceKeeping in its truest form is. And is exactly what Lester B had in mind, it started with Korea, Suez and Congo  and kinda went off the rails as we were lulled into believing that Cyprus was the standard it was not, it took Croatia, Rwanda, Bosnia Kosavo and then finally A stan to bring it back to were it was always supposed to be. Don't confuse Peacekeeping with the left wing media definition.

 

[career_radio-checker]

I find this topic to be extremely interesting.
In fact I have chosen it for my thesis

Can anyone help me find some sources that cover this topic from an International relations perspective?
What was the catalyst that caused this change, and when was the turning point?
Going on the known schools of political thought (realism, neo-realism, idealism, liberalism etc...) which one best relates and supports the shift to this sort of UN approved -- NATO tasked type of missions?
Any help would be greatly appreciated

 

[Lockness]

I find this topic to be extremely interesting.
In fact I have chosen it for my thesis

Can anyone help me find some sources that cover this topic from an International relations perspective?
What was the catalyst that caused this change, and when was the turning point?
Going on the known schools of political thought (realism, neo-realism, idealism, liberalism etc...) which one best relates and supports the shift to this sort of UN approved -- NATO tasked type of missions?
Any help would be greatly appreciated

Peacekeeper: The Road to Sarajevo (Hardcover)
by Lewis MacKenzie (Author), Major General Louis MacKenzie (Author)
14 used & new available from $1.97 Amazon ... Bet the General is sad. =(

 

[Centurian1985]

I know it's been pointed out repeatedly.... but still he states that any UN mission must adhere to the rule of law, while calling for intervention in Darfur.

Darfur, folks, is a region within a country that has specifically and repeatedly refused UN troops. Sending soldiers to Darfur amounts to invading a sovereign nation. That, Romeo, is illegal. Come down off that pedestal - - you can't argue it both ways in the same speech.
Now that's a change of tune. He must have seen the opinion polls that show Canadian's actually SUPPORTING CF troops in Afghanistan.  :

I used to truly respect and admire him when he was my brigade commander. But respect must be earned, and he's definitely squandered it, letting politics run rampant over the common sense he once displayed.   

+1; Surprising how fast he changed his tune on Afghanistan considering how he was against it before...

 

[peaches]

Ref Dallaire and his statments about sending 600 troops to Sudan, has he presented a plan at all about where these troops would come from??  Does anyone know?? 

 

[MarkOttawa]

A guest-post at Daimnation!:

"Humanitarian war" an oxymoron? More Darfur silliness from Canadian MP
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/007722.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[McG]

Sending soldiers to Darfur amounts to invading a sovereign nation. That, Romeo, is illegal. Come down off that pedestal - - you can't argue it both ways in the same speech.

International law does not ban war, so invading would not be illegal.  There might be grey areas, but UN support should resolve those.

The past 15 years have been truly the reemergence of the pure peacekeeping missions culminating with the UN authorized peacekeeping mission in A Stan which from my perspective has been the best lead and best executed of all the missions of late.

Do not be a part of the misinformation problem.  Afghanistan is not a peace mission.  Afghanistan is a war and it always has been.  The international community and the legitimately elected Afghan government are at war with an extremist movement within that country.

 

[Journeyman]

International law does not ban war, so invading would not be illegal.  There might be grey areas, but UN support should resolve those.

Notwithstanding the governing principle of international law prefers "armed attack" to "war".....

Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter holds that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."1

The UN lives for "grey areas" that allow them to avoid "support" or "resolve." As long as they have a legal excuse to do nothing, that will be the order of the day. And all the academic crap aside, as long as the P5 continue to veto any action (in this case Russia, China, AND France - - gee, what are the odds of convincing three of the five that Darfur is worth UN effort to save?)....NOTHING will be done.

-------------------
1. Jurist, University of Pittsburg, School of Law. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/07/international-law-aspects-of-mideast.php

 

[a_majoor]

I find this topic to be extremely interesting.
In fact I have chosen it for my thesis

Can anyone help me find some sources that cover this topic from an International relations perspective?
What was the catalyst that caused this change, and when was the turning point?
Going on the known schools of political thought (realism, neo-realism, idealism, liberalism etc...) which one best relates and supports the shift to this sort of UN approved -- NATO tasked type of missions?
Any help would be greatly appreciated

Look at this for some background: http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/P5.html

 

[xmarcx]

I find this topic to be extremely interesting.
In fact I have chosen it for my thesis

Can anyone help me find some sources that cover this topic from an International relations perspective?
What was the catalyst that caused this change, and when was the turning point?
Going on the known schools of political thought (realism, neo-realism, idealism, liberalism etc...) which one best relates and supports the shift to this sort of UN approved -- NATO tasked type of missions?
Any help would be greatly appreciated

I'd have to dig through some old papers, but Just War Theory! It pops up a lot in IR theory relating to peacekeeping, well, more specifically interventions. You can look at it as a way of reconciling liberal values with neo-realist fears.

 

[career_radio-checker]

I'd have to dig through some old papers, but Just War Theory! It pops up a lot in IR theory relating to peacekeeping, well, more specifically interventions. You can look at it as a way of reconciling liberal values with neo-realist fears.

Excellent! and thanks to everyone else for their suggestions. I have narrowed down the study to be a case study of Bosnia simply because It's the one mission we have UN going in -- and NATO taking over--and Europe taking over that.

I know that the UN went in to Bosnia in 1992 and was seen as a failure because of the "safe haven" mascres. But could someone tell me what happened after? Was the UN disgraced? is that why NATO took over after the 1995 Dayton Ohio Accords? And, just to confirm... this was the first mission that fell directly under NATO responisibility, correct?

Thanks

 

[Journeyman]

You can look at it as a way of reconciling liberal values with neo-realist fears.

Value-laden words! I believe you meant "reconciling liberal rainbow dreams with the neo-realists' rational perspective." 

Was the UN disgraced?

In whose opinion? The UN's vacuuming of money for no observable return has been a disgrace for the last....oh, four or five decades. But if one has no shame or honour, how would "disgrace" be recognized?

So no, it was not disgraced, it merely had its' incompetence confirmed for those that chose to note it (predominantly those not living off the UN gravy-train, or liberal arts faculty who've never actually had boots on the ground to see the results of their 'theories').

To quote that wise, eloquent philosopher Al Pacino (as Col Slade in "Scent of a Woman"), "I'd take a flamethrower to the place"


This response doesn't come across as too bitterly anti-UN does it?  ;D

 

[xmarcx]

Value-laden words! I believe you meant "reconciling liberal rainbow dreams with the neo-realists' rational perspective." 

I was trying not to expose my own theoretical bias! I mean, sure I believe liberal values are meaningful in international relations - they really help stall for time while we get boots on the ground to just blow up the damn bad people.  :warstory:

 

[3rd Horseman]

Don't move too quick as some of the base line you have laid down is flawed. I think your idea for a paper is good but it will get really difficult as you get deeper. Have fun and here is a little perspective.

  The UN went into Bosnia to secure an air head for the war raging in Croatia not to protect safe havens. The real reason was to ensure a military presence on the ground for when the war came to Bosnia. Read Gen Macks book.

  The UN although apparently a failure did in the end through combat operations ended the war in the Fall of 1995 before NATOs IFOR arrived. To view IFOR and SFOR as a NATO force being successful in Bosnia from a war ending perspective is flawed since the war was over when they arrived. NATO under IFOR and SFOR did a fine job as peacekeepers in the blue helmet sense. As a matter of interest this week is the 11th anniversary for the last battle in Bosnia fought by UN forces and that battle marked the end of the war in Bosnia. It took IFOR 3 months after this end of hostilities to arrive.

  The safe havens were also not actually a failure if you dig deep enough.

edit typo

 

[career_radio-checker]

Thanks again to journeyman and horseman.

With every book I read this project doesn't get clearer... it gets confusing 

Soooooooo many different sides to view it from  :-[ but that is what will make the project worthwhile

I am at the library now and going to take out Gen Mack's book.

What I am currious to ask is this:

Chapter VII UN missions seem to be the missions with the least success rate. Bosnia, Rwanda and Somalia where all Ch. VII missions and we know how well they did. But that is not to totally discredit the UN because I know they have had success in other places like Congo (recently) Birundi, Cyprus etc...
What I am looking at is how Western powers have lost faith in the blue beret as an effective tool for military intervention I am not considering Observers for the fact that they often come in at the end of the conflict and only serve to monitor the peace agreements (I know this doesn't do observers justice but for the sake of my 15 page paper that is one of the sacrifices). So my question is this: Since the Bosnian, conflict have there been amendments to the CH. VII guidelines? Because I have already found a hole in my theory -- Canada took part in a UN mission in HAITI 2 years ago.