Mark Steyn on the UN

[a_majoor]

Here is a link to an article by Mark Styen on the UN which he describes as:

    a shamefully squalid organization whose corruption is almost impossible to exaggerate. If you think—as the media and the left do in this country—that Iraq is a God-awful mess (which it’s not), then try being the Balkans or Sudan or even Cyprus or anywhere where the problem’s been left to the United Nations. If you don’t want to bulk up your pension by skimming the Oil-for-Food program, no need to worry. Whatever your bag, the UN can find somewhere that suits—in West Africa, it’s Sex-for-Food, with aid workers demanding sexual services from locals as young as four; in Cambodia, it’s drug dealing; in Kenya, it’s the refugee extortion racket; in the Balkans, sex slaves. On a UN peace mission, everyone gets his piece.

Read the rest here: http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/

Which once again raises the question: Why are we allowing ourselves to be associated with such a squalid organization, and where should we go if we really (as Canadians) want to make a difference in the world?

 

[Slim]

Why are we allowing ourselves to be associated with such a squalid organization, and where should we go if we really (as Canadians) want to make a difference in the world?

Peacekeeping is one of those things that, despite the fact that it hasn't worked from day one, has caught on in the mind of our oh-so-spoiled populace to the point where they refer to our armed forces as "Peacekeepers" and not soldiers, sailors and airmen.

This is a myth that needs to be dispelled as soon as possible and never brought back. It has somehow given the nation at lare the idea that an armed conflict can be solved with a few cookies and blankets.

 

[RangerRay]

Another brilliant article by Mark Steyn.  I wish his articles were more available to Canadians at large.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

"It’s a good basic axiom that if you take a quart of ice cream and a quart of dog mess and mix ’em together, the result will taste more like dog mess than ice cream."
Classic

 

[2 Cdo]

Peacekeeping is one of those things that, despite the fact that it hasn't worked from day one, has caught on in the mind of our oh-so-spoiled populace to the point where they refer to our armed forces as "Peacekeepers" and not soldiers, sailors and airmen.

This is a myth that needs to be dispelled as soon as possible and never brought back. It has somehow given the nation at lare the idea that an armed conflict can be solved with a few cookies and blankets.
Bravo, well said!  Mr Steyns article should be required reading for ALL Canadians, but I fear the left-wing lunatics would just ignore it. Much better to place your trust in an organization that pampers homicidal dictators rather than our traditional Allies Germany and France! Sorry I meant to say Britain and the US.

 

[Glorified Ape]

Oh boy, more conservative railing against the UN, how novel. Every governance organization has corruption, most are just better at hiding it than the UN.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Peacekeeping is one of those things that, despite the fact that it hasn't worked from day one,

How do you justify this obvious exaggeration?

 

[a_majoor]

Quote from: Slim on March 02, 2006, 21:16:14

Peacekeeping is one of those things that, despite the fact that it hasn't worked from day one,

How do you justify this obvious exaggeration?

I was on OP Snowgoose 52 (Cyprus) in 1989-1990, essentially having a holiday on the island (hostilities having ended in 1974). The factors which caused the conflict in the first place were not being addressed, rather the situation was frozen in amber, while the local population had over 25 years to figure out how to extract the maximum amount of money from the UN. (The "rent" paid to the owners of the Ledra Palace hotel didn't seem to be enough to cover fixing the bullet holes that were made in 1974, for example....). The situation has not materially changed since then, except there is no more CCUNCYP.

Peacekeepers were rudely shunted aside in the Sinai when Egypt decided to go to war in 1967, and made handy hostages in the Balkens in the 1990s as well when NATO arrived and prepared to provide actual military power against the ethnic cleansers.

Styen explicitly lays out the more horrific scandals associated with "Peacekeeping" such as the sex slavery in the Balkens and the "Sex for Food" in the Congo, and of course we all know how the peacekeeping in Somalia and Rwanda ended.....

I'm afraid this mild understatement has only scratched the surface of the failings of the UN and the peacekeeping concept.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Quote from: Slim on March 02, 2006, 21:16:14
I was on OP Snowgoose 52 (Cyprus) in 1989-1990, essentially having a holiday on the island (hostilities having ended in 1974). The factors which caused the conflict in the first place were not being addressed, rather the situation was frozen in amber, while the local population had over 25 years to figure out how to extract the maximum amount of money from the UN. (The "rent" paid to the owners of the Ledra Palace hotel didn't seem to be enough to cover fixing the bullet holes that were made in 1974, for example....). The situation has not materially changed since then, except there is no more CCUNCYP.

Peacekeepers were rudely shunted aside in the Sinai when Egypt decided to go to war in 1967, and made handy hostages in the Balkens in the 1990s as well when NATO arrived and prepared to provide actual military power against the ethnic cleansers.

Styen explicitly lays out the more horrific scandals associated with "Peacekeeping" such as the sex slavery in the Balkens and the "Sex for Food" in the Congo, and of course we all know how the peacekeeping in Somalia and Rwanda ended.....

I'm afraid this mild understatement has only scratched the surface of the failings of the UN and the peacekeeping concept.

Ok, what about the ones that started it all - India/Pakistan, or UNEF?  I may need to reread Mackenzie's book. I can understand the desire to move away from the Peacekeeper label currently, but I'm not sure I understand the rush to piss all over the work of Canadian soldiers for several decades.  I realize there is a difference between saying that Peacekeeping has "never worked" and saying that all Canadian soldiers wasted their time for decades, but I'd also hate to think we were doing the latter just to make a political point today.

 

[2 Cdo]

Ok, what about the ones that started it all - India/Pakistan, or UNEF?  I may need to reread Mackenzie's book. I can understand the desire to move away from the Peacekeeper label currently, but I'm not sure I understand the rush to piss all over the work of Canadian soldiers for several decades.  I realize there is a difference between saying that Peacekeeping has "never worked" and saying that all Canadian soldiers wasted their time for decades, but I'd also hate to think we were doing the latter just to make a political point today.

Michael I don't think anyone is pissing on past work (Cyprus '87) just pointing out "peacekeepings" shortfalls. Cyprus being an extremely good example of what not to do. Things like overstay your welcome, overpay the populace, no incentive for warring factions to resolve an issue, things like that.

Blaming troops is not what folks are doing but blaming the organization itself, the UN, which has proven time and time again to be morally and spiritually corrupt!

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Michael I don't think anyone is pissing on past work (Cyprus '87) just pointing out "peacekeepings" shortfalls. Cyprus being an extremely good example of what not to do. Things like overstay your welcome, overpay the populace, no incentive for warring factions to resolve an issue, things like that.

Blaming troops is not what folks are doing but blaming the organization itself, the UN, which has proven time and time again to be morally and spiritually corrupt!

Now I'm confused - are you saying peacekeeping has never worked, or are you saying it has simply been done very poorly? 

I'm also not defending the UN and certainly accept the critiques put forth as valid.

 

[a_majoor]

Peacekeeping has been done so poorly that it was ineffective, and absorbed a lot of time, resources and manpower which could have been devoted to other purposes.

In one sense "Peacekeeping" was a success, although not in the way the UNophiles believe. UN peacekeeping was really a way of fighting the Cold War, freezing conflicts on the periphery of the East West divide, and allowing the principles to maintain their resources and focus on the main event. In that sense, the fact that conflicts were unresolved really was meaningless in the bigger picture; they did not grow either.

With the end of the cold war, this entire model became invalid, with the results we have seen.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Peacekeeping has been done so poorly that it was ineffective, and absorbed a lot of time, resources and manpower which could have been devoted to other purposes.

In one sense "Peacekeeping" was a success, although not in the way the UNophiles believe. UN peacekeeping was really a way of fighting the Cold War, freezing conflicts on the periphery of the East West divide, and allowing the principles to maintain their resources and focus on the main event. In that sense, the fact that conflicts were unresolved really was meaningless in the bigger picture; they did not grow either.

With the end of the cold war, this entire model became invalid, with the results we have seen.

But to a civilian living on Cyprus, wouldn't he prefer the garrison in his village be British or Canadian rather than Greek or Turk (depending on his own nationality)?  I'm not saying your criticisms aren't valid, but you're not saying peacekeeping has never worked.  It has.  It's stopped wars.  The fact that it was hugely wasteful in resources, wildly corrupt, and never addressed the situations leading to those potential wars in the first place are also valid, but why should it change the fact that it did, in fact, stop those conflicts?

Sure, no battles were fought on Cyprus after 1974.  You say the UN forces there were pouring bad money into the place, I have no trouble believeing that.  It was an inelegant way to do things.  But...why does that negate the fact that there was still no fighting or loss of life from 1974 on?

Doing something poorly or wastefully and failing at something are two different things, no? 

Not trying to be contentious, but my initial objection was to the seemingly callous phrase "peacekeeping has NEVER worked".  If there was no bloodshed in Cyprus from 1974 to present, isn't that evidence that - no matter how poorly it was done - it has indeed worked?

I'm not sure I understand how it was "done so poorly that it was ineffective". If you mean cost effective, sure, but who measures military effectiveness in terms of cost-efficiency?  What are the stated goals of peacekeeping missions?  Does the UNFICYP mandate mention fiscal responsibility?  I'd be surprised to see that. 

What was UNFICYP mandated to do - and if they did it, isn't that success?

 

[2 Cdo]

I would call it a failure even though it may have prevented further loss of life (Cyprus) in that it provided no incentive to resolve an issue. 40+ years UN peacekeepers have been in Cyprus, longer than most people on this site have been alive! 40+ years with nothing changing and with no end in sight except the further extraction of UN forces money in Nicosia, Larnica and Aiya Napa.

If nothing gets solved in that length of time I am inclined to call it a failure.

In one sense "Peacekeeping" was a success, although not in the way the UNophiles believe. UN peacekeeping was really a way of fighting the Cold War, freezing conflicts on the periphery of the East West divide, and allowing the principles to maintain their resources and focus on the main event. In that sense, the fact that conflicts were unresolved really was meaningless in the bigger picture; they did not grow either.

If we use this argument as a means measuring success then UN peacekeeping was worth every nickel!

The idea of "peacekeeping" is a noble idea that usually gets corrupted by the arseholes that we are supposed to be helping, and the organization itself is in dire need of a makeover or a good housecleaning!

 

[muskrat89]

A surgeon can do his best at a procedure that ultimately didn't save the patient's life (failed)... To state after the fact that the operation was a failure doesn't negate the efforts of the surgeon...

The way I'm reading majoor and others is that the operations weren't without any merit, simply that they failed, on a grand scale, to meet the intent of their objective..

 

[2 Cdo]

The way I'm reading majoor and others is that the operations weren't without any merit, simply that they failed, on a grand scale, to meet the intent of their objective..

Bingo! Good intentions, lousy execution. Western troops did an admirable job in most cases, but when the UN deployed "soldiers" from some of the "lesser" countries without arms, without pay, and without any decent training we all know what ends up happening!

 

[Jungle]

Do not forget there are two aspects to a peacekeeping mission: Military, and political. In the case of Cyprus, the Military aspect is a success; it is the diplomatic aspect that is failing.
Peace has been kept for so long in Cyprus for a number of reasons, one of which being that Greece and Turkey are both members of NATO.
Finally, there has been loss of life in Cyprus since 1974; not on a large scale, but there were deaths directly attributed to the state of conflict in both 1985 and 1992 (the tours I was on), and again in 1996 in the "battle of the flags". Those are the ones I am aware of, I am sure there were many more.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

A surgeon can do his best at a procedure that ultimately didn't save the patient's life (failed)... To state after the fact that the operation was a failure doesn't negate the efforts of the surgeon...

The way I'm reading majoor and others is that the operations weren't without any merit, simply that they failed, on a grand scale, to meet the intent of their objective..

So now you're saying that success is measured not in what the stated objectives were, but in what the intent of the stated objectives were?

I think it is a matter of perspective - to the mother in Greece or Turkey who hasn't lost a son or daughter in combat, peacekeeping on Cyprus has been wildly successful; there's unfortunately no way of quantifying that.  To a professional Canadian soldier who is using the conversation as a lobby for more funding and a more aggressive role for the Forces to free up cash for better equipment, one can see the imperative to describing former peace missions as unsuccessful.  I don't believe that is particularly appropriate, nor do I think the point has been well made here to support the blanket assertion that "Peacekeeping has never worked."  It clearly has in many ways - not trying to argue the number of angels on the head of a pin (3,327 last time I checked) but I do think it serves us better to say peacekeeping was done poorly in the past, which seems beyond doubt - again, from the perspective of a nation who has sent soldiers to do it and has not ever had foreign soldiers on its own soil tasked with same.

Jungle says that peacekeeping has succeeded in a military but not a political sense.  Which I think is what we are all saying - ie peace has been maintained but at a high cost financially, politically, etc.

I would also agree with General Mackenzie and the rest of you in concluding that at present, there is a dearth of suitable conditions for the employment of peacekeepers.

Anyway, this has been a large hijack - though to be honest I don't think anyone can seriously question Steyn's comments on the UN.

Which once again raises the question: Why are we allowing ourselves to be associated with such a squalid organization, and where should we go if we really (as Canadians) want to make a difference in the world?

This does merit consideration.  Pax NATOna?  What choice do we have, really but to either follow the US' lead, or do nothing?  Is there a third option?  Is a "middle power union" really possible or desirable?  I mean, Poland, Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, Argentina all banding together to fight corruption in Africa or somefink?  I say develop some alteternatives to fossil fuel - and fast - and let the Middle East sort out their own problems.  Maybe get on board with that ballistic defence shield first, though, although paying for that one might be worse than paying our dues with the UN...

 

[a_majoor]

The military is a means of using force in support of the policy of the government. If the policy is freeze conflicts to maintin focus on the USSR, then I will say Peacekeeping was partially successful between the 1950s and 1980s. The peacekeepers were ordered out or ignored on several occasions even during this "golden age",(Cyprus and Egypt) so it is only a qualified success. Since we no longer need to watch the Fulda Gap, that particular policy imperative has passed.

If the policy was to end conflicts and establish a lasting peace (the way Liberals and NDP supporters speak of peacekeeping), then it was a resounding failure, the conflicts were and are not ended. The scandals revolving around current missions makes me very glad Canada isn't involved (imagine being associated even in passing by a "Sex for Food" or sex slave ring).

In one of the other threads, I am arguing that Canada should take it's rightful place among the nations of the Anglosphere, joining our political, economic and military power with nations with similar systems of government, economies and values. We can "tiger team" to solve specific problems (like the US, Japan and Australia did during the Tsunami relief effort), or formalize things with bilateral and multilateral agreements. In the end, I would look along the same lines as the United States: the Anglosphere, New Europe, Israel, India and Japan as our "Tier one" partners.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

The military is a means of using force in support of the policy of the government. If the policy is freeze conflicts to maintin focus on the USSR, then I will say Peacekeeping was partially successful between the 1950s and 1980s. The peacekeepers were ordered out or ignored on several occasions even during this "golden age",(Cyprus and Egypt) so it is only a qualified success. Since we no longer need to watch the Fulda Gap, that particular policy imperative has passed.

If the policy was to end conflicts and establish a lasting peace (the way Liberals and NDP supporters speak of peacekeeping), then it was a resounding failure, the conflicts were and are not ended. The scandals revolving around current missions makes me very glad Canada isn't involved (imagine being associated even in passing by a "Sex for Food" or sex slave ring).

Why not just peace for the sake of peace?  You are saying that Canadian governments have had only two motives for sending peacekeepers;

a) as part of a political ploy during the Cold War, which had nothing to do with the combatants themselves
b) as part of establishing a world order of peace and harmony

In other words, you're in effect building a strawman argument.  Please prove to us that peacekeeping was ever the overriding intent of either of these.  I've read the mandate of UNFICYP and yes, if either one of those two goals was the true purpose of the mission, it would not likely be enunciated in said mandate.  However, what about the goal of

c) stopping Greek and Turk forces from killing each other and/or civilians on Cyprus?

Is it really not possible to simply stop and evaluate the success of UNFICYP simply at that level?

I mean, given that a new world order is damnably hard to create (Hitler gave it a good shot, though), are you really saying that successive governments in multiple nations have decided to go ahead and do exactly that to the exclusion of all else?  And that the short term was never a goal for any of them, in deciding to participate in UN missions?