Is there any point in sending UN peacekeepers with no authority to use force?

Question

The UN has approved a peacekeeping force for Darfur. It looks like the crucial issue has been "respecting Sudanese sovereignty". This surely means that the blue helmets will once again have no power or authority to stop govenment sanctioned murders. I'm not quite old enough to remember peacekeepers in the Sinai from 1956-1967, but I can remember ones who came later. In some cases, perhaps, things did remain peaceful. But in others, Bosnia comes to mind, they looked the other way while massacres occured right under their noses. Their reason for inaction boiled down to "interfering with this is not in our orders." If that is the case, then what is the point of sending troops in at all? It seems that peacekeepers are paper tigers in a very real sense. Perhaps people didn't realize that in the first few decades, but do they really think they are fooling anyone anymore? What can they expect to accomplish with this?

Update:

to conranger and desertviking: thanks, good answers. And, as a matter of fact, I was aware that these peacekeepers are not as well equipped and have far less discretion than, say, an army going to war.

Perhaps another way of wording my complaint is that I think "peacekeeper" suggests, on the surface, a more active force than these are. Would a better term be "monitor". I fear that this is another example of our leadership using semantics to suggest they are doing far more than they, in fact, are doing.

desertviking_00 · Accepted Answer

A peacekeeping mission,  under Chapter Six of the UN Charter, presupposes that both sides in the conflict will permit the peacekeepers to be placed in between them. I will agree that there have been instances where those peackeepers have come under fire or been threatened in other ways by internal forces of the nation to which the peacekeeping mission has been sent. And I think the answer lies in amendment of the UN Charter. In any instance where peacekeepers come under fire while on a Chapter Six mission, the entire mission  will be automatically ramped up to peace enforcement under Chapter Seven of the UN Charter and the commander will be authorized to use all necessary means to establish the state of things before the attack.

conranger1 · Answer

The U.N is not an Army fully backed up with Air support, Tanks, unlimited manpower and Naval support.

The posters here talk like the U.N. is on the same military footing as a regular country like the U.S.A. or the E.U. States.

The only time that happened was in KOREA!

The job of a U.N. Blue-Helmet or Blue-Beret is to provide a dividing line / area amongst waring factions, where the civil population can live in peace.
In doing so the U.N. soldiers often become the target from both sides. (Over 40 Irish U.N. members have died in the service of Peace-Keeping in South Lebanon 1978-2000).

It was unfortunate that Dutch U.N. troops were placed in a position of helplessness in Bosnia, but as they were a very small force and hopelessly outnumbered by Serbian Forces I do not see what they could have done, they were armed with personel weapons and ligh machine guns, against a force with Armour and heavy weapons.
They did not "look the other way", the Muslim men and boys who were massacred were removed from the U.N. postion and killed later in other locations.
The U.N. is not fooling anybody all soldiers who serve do so as volunteers, its not for extra money or glory.

When a U.N. Mission is formulated they do not go in as invaders and have to respect the soverign power of that country, they cannot tell the people how to vote, or any other way to live, their job first and foremost is to try and establish some normality and peace.

Also the U.N. will be shareing their duties with troops from the African Union. And it has not been decided yet as to who will be running the mission.

You would do well to research how the United Nations functions in general, they do far more that "Peace-keeping" missions.

Anonymous · Answer

PEACE KEEPERS? HA!    More like observers. What a joke! More like a paper tiger with NO TEETH!!!! If I was in Darfur and saw the BLUE HELMETS coming my way....I'd RUN the other way as fast as I could. The only thing that is consistant with the U.N. is  .......   NOTHING! If this is the best the world can do....God help those people because the BLUE MEANIES wont.

Shannon! · Answer

Not a God damn thing. They're going over there to do nothing. They won't attack anyone. Why? The UN is too scared to do anything tht will actually accomplish anything.

annoyingdude99 · Answer

The only lives they will save are foreign lives.

Trending News

Is there any point in sending UN peacekeepers with no authority to use force?

5 Answers