By Brian Klein, Special to CNN
Editor’s note: Brian P. Klein is an economic consultant and former U.S. diplomat. The views expressed are his own.
Now that Kofi Annan has stepped down from his position as U.N. Arab League Envoy to Syria and peacekeeping troops are being removed from the country one has to wonder – does the United Nations have any role to play in conflict resolution?
The reality is that the Annan Plan, which supported an interim government to shepherd Syria into a post-dictatorship future, was doomed from the start. Bashar al-Assad was to unilaterally step down in the middle of ongoing hostilities while his forces held the momentum against a popular uprising.
Al-Assad of course played the statesman, met with U.N. officials and allowed troops to enter Syria. No one was fooled for long. His military began an all-out assault soon after Annan’s plane took off. Helicopter gunships and fighter jets strafed cities as civilian casualties mounted. Nearly $17 million was authorized for the 150 military observers and 105 civilians. While a paltry sum considering the more than $7 billion peacekeeping budget, that money could have funded, for example, 2,400 water projects for creating wells to bring safe drinking water to over a million people in need.
Instead, United Nations’ efforts lengthened by weeks if not months a concerted move by regional powers to openly oppose Syria’s indiscriminate attacks on its citizenry. The General Assembly then voted to censure its own Security Council for failing to do more.
The absurdity of the U.N. divided against itself is compounded by the poor track record of stopping violence. Despite the main charter of the U.N. beginning with lofty ideals to “take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression…” the supra-national force has never been a realistic fighting military. It lacks the command, control, intelligence and weaponry to stop war once it has begun.
With the world economy tilting dangerously towards stagnation, U.N. budgets will inevitably be forced to shrink. The world body would therefore be well advised to focus on its humanitarian strengths and less on the intractable, hard-scrabble world of armed conflict.
This isn’t the first time that poorly conceived efforts failed to turn aggression into peaceful resolution. In the 1990’s, U.N. forces were withdrawn in the face of overwhelming evidence of Rwandan genocidal atrocities. In Kosovo, it took then President Bill Clinton committing U.S. forces to protect a Muslim minority from being massacred by their neighbors.
These days, violence still flares in the Democratic Republic of the Congo despite a U.N. presence dating back to July 2010 that now numbers over 23,000 personnel (including 19,000 in uniform) and a budget of $1.4 billion. To keep the peace in Darfur, Sudan (17,000 military) and newly created South Sudan (over 5,500) the U.N. is spending nearly $2.5 billion. And with all those forces in place, tens of thousands still flee fighting as the humanitarian situation continues to worsen. Doctors Without Borders highlighted in an August report the ongoing health crisis in Batil Camp, South Sudan with diarrhea causing 90 percent of deaths and malnourishment rates in those under two years-old hitting 44 percent. Of all the tragedies of war, these are imminently solvable problems, and yet too many continue to die because of misallocated priorities and resources.
Security Council resolutions, sanctions and other tools of the diplomatic trade do very little to change the on-the-ground reality of war. Arms continue flowing across porous borders despite calls for embargoes. While world leaders make grand speeches defending their non-intervention or the inalienable rights of humanity in the green marbled U.N. headquarters, countries continue to act with or without U.N. sanction. Spending on “political affairs” and “overall policymaking, direction and coordination” accounts for nearly 40 percent of the United Nations’ current $5.1 billion operating budget. Peacekeeping operations total another $7 billion for 2012-2013.
Yet where the United Nations excels, in disaster relief, health initiatives, education, and support for refugees, programs remain woefully underfunded often requiring public appeals with Hollywood A-listers to bolster their sagging budgets. Few would argue against feeding a malnourished child on the verge of starvation with Angelina Jolie passing out the collections tin. Many would argue for weeks and at considerable expense, mincing words in watered-down, grand sounding political statements on the inherent value of peace.
Certainly, peacekeeping has done some good, but the disproportionate amount spent on these efforts, with such poor results overall and over such a long period of time, need re-examination. A U.N. force has maintained a presence in the Western Sahara since 1994 and has been “stabilizing” Haiti for the past 8 years, costing hundreds of millions of dollars.
It is incumbent on major donors like the U.S., Japan and the U.K., which collectively fund nearly half of annual peacekeeping efforts, to weigh in heavily on reform. Direct the limited amount of resources to programs that make a difference and stop relying on antiquated dreams of stateless noble actors bequeathing peace from above. Build on peace from the ground up instead.
Brian P. Klein is a freelance writer and macroeconomic/geopolitical strategist.
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
There is money, serious money to be made in fueling combat and civil unrest with goals toward regime change. If it were possible to remove the insentive for financial gain from this, well, talk about antiquated dreams of stateless noble actors bequeathing peace from above. Since currency holds more
value than life, this will never change. Apologies for the pessistic view of current humanity. But nothing real has changed on this front in millennia.
Agree with you...
It takes much time, loads of good will and tons of energy to reform the UN. It has become sclerotic from years of inertia. The Cold War is over, but it is still played out in the Security Council. The UN-Assembly is – per se – an excellent forum for member states of the international community. The mantra man hears, the UN is understaffed and underfunded. Yet much resources are also squandered.
Well put, iralarry. I couldn't agree more!
More or less, I just do not know!
A better question is should the US rethink having and paying for the UN to be here. The UN has proven that, despite it's good intentions at the start, that it is an ineffective organization and even in the face of things like Syria unable to act cause of this ridiculous VETO rule that allows Russia or China to thwart the will of the majority. I think we need to STOP paying for the UN, MOVE it out of the US, and finally DROP our membership in it.
First of all correct your grammatical mistake: ITS and IT'S are not equivalent. IT'S replaces IT IS, ITS cannot be replaced by IT IS. '... the UN has proven that, IN SPITE OF ITS good intentions....(despite: contempt, scorn...).
I think it is the other way around: the US should get out of Guantanamo and all the other bases all over the world, where it has its tentacles, the money spent keeping the bases abroad could pay for education at home very much needed...
I agree. Given how bad parts of the world is now, things can only get worse without the U.S. telling people what to do...
...oh wait...
Thank you, marinagp. You said it all! We need these bases like one needs a case of hemorroids!
You notice how I always mention my rear end? I am obsessed with my rear end.
Russia and china using their veto power regarding Syria is no different than the USA using the same veto power to thwart the will of the majority regarding Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian land.
Paul I agree with you but you did not mention that Russia and China vetoed only two times for Syria and USA has vetoed
more than hundreds after 1967 wars for Israeil
Israel is not occupying palestinian land.
How many times has USA vetoed UN resolutions against Israel again??
Karim, why you lie?
Are you a Tea Partier?
yes true on the occupied palestinian territory
Well-said Stevem7!!!
I find it ironic that you are somewhat critical of the veto power of Russia and China.The US has vetoed any condemnation of whatever the Isreali government does,in the UN,but is upset if any permanent member exercise the same right.The US does not run the world.
UN will only work if big players such as US, Russia, China etc stop using their veto power so often! Today in Syria's conflict we are blaming China and Russia and when there was Palestinian-Israel conflict then we blamed US for their vetoes on Israel's behalf......this goes on and on and nothing gets done! So these big players do all the manuvering and play politics and then blame UN for it is being ineffective. So please don't blame UN because it can't do anything unless veto-bearing countries play fair game, not the politics. In my opinion, under the current structure of the UN, there is no hope for any improvement so, in my opinion, UN should be dismantled completely and then new worldbody be formed in which no country h ever allowed to have veto power....decision should be made on the basis of majority votes in the assembly! If this is not acceptable to veto-weilding countries then there should be no worldbody instead form regional bodies such as Asia, Africa, European bodies etc.......and these blocks should work together and come up with joint solutions for the good of all humanity......not just for the benefit of veto-weilding countries.
That's funny. should the UN rethink things? NOOOO, OF COURSE NOT! look at how well things are going... LOL
The U.N. is a joke and always has been! after working for this cluster for several years I decided that I would not take the bribes they call a paycheck any longer. In the U.N. if you open you mouth and speak about injustices that the U.N. is condoning you will be disciplined.
The U.N. thinks as itself as above the law and when asked a critical question about itself I know there will be no answer. Just look back at Haiti and the disease and death they have brought because of no over site nor ramification due to immunity.
Ben echoes my deepest thoughts regrading the "effectiveness" of UN interventions. Nothing could be more truer...
The UN is worthless and everyone knows it. "Peacekeeping" will never work if you are never willing to do what is necessary to keep the peace. There should be a no-fly zone over Syria and we should have destroyed the Syrian airforce so the rebels would have a fighting chance. As things stand right now, the UN is watching thousands of people get slaughtered and not lifting a finger.
If you are a rebels !!???(as Israeil like you all) in Syria then go and fight why you ask other powers to do that for you!? what then they will want from you!? when you got the gun on Gov then even USA will do harsh thing like they did to David
Kuresh !!!FBI burned him and 60 others his followers women children ....What do you expect ??You are not Democrats
when you use Allaho Akbar for killing others !!!you are just another BenLaden
You mean "bin laden".
Any ideas of the UN working was killed with the start of the Cold War. Now it's just a bunch of super-power nations stroking each others' egos.
Just goes to show that mankind can't be governed under one paticular system. The biggest obsticale it has to over come is the sovernity of nations. Treaty organizations have proven to be more effective, even when there's an oposition.
But it does allow for diplomates to voice their discontent in front of an audience.
i couldn't agree with you more! The big powers made UN a joke!
Does UN have any credibility ? It is like now a Useless World Body Nodbody cares. I think It is time to say good bye to
this origanization.
do you remember John-Bolton !!?? yes Bush ambassador tp UN and when France and Germany supprizingley opposed
to Iraq war then too many others ....Bolton said he wish to boldouzer the UN !?? because if any country says no to US it
means that country should boldouzed !? Wow no I see who are anti UN organization
Karim, i bet you are from the middle east. I don't disagree with you, but i don't fully agree with you either. Americans have the right to be against the U.N. Yes it served it's purpose for us in the past, but we are allowed to express our discord for the current way in which things are being done by the U.N. Don't forget that tough big bad U.S.A. has done many things to deserve the disrespect and even hate of the majority of the world, we still have given to the poor in your country with a larger hand than you or your government. We may fight for our own interest, but when was the last time you helped children in Africa financially, or even volunteered to go in a country where extremists could kidnap you or kill you for having a different faith just to make a child's life brighter.. you disgust me with your anti western rhetoric, and your idealism. We are not perfect, far from it, we are just as weak as you are. But if you will only see what wrongs we have done as a nation, then when we look at you and your nation all we will see are extremists, murderers, suicide bombers, and uneducated biggots with false illusions of grandeur.
I agree 100% with you.
I meant agreeing with OUTSPOKEN.......dismantle the UN.
I think I agree with the author here. It is an imperfect world and the UN has never been given the tools to suppress violence. It cannot do what the major powers wont agree to let it do. I am not all that certain it could have reined in the Syrian Govt even had China and Russia been willing to cooperate with the Western powers. In some distant future , perhaps we will have a World Government which will have those tools, but not at this time. Meanwhile , of course, it can focus on helping out where it can.
I think I agree, BUT, we are SLOWLY "EVOLVING" – patience takes days, years, decades, centuries, etc.!
In time – probably not "YOURS" or "MINE" though – JUST TRY TO HELP, WHATEVER WAY "YOU" CAN!
-The Old Goat-
United Nations is only useful for those that participate. This group needs to concentrate on humanitarian efforts and disaster relief and keep those folks safe.
Are you saying that the UN should help people who are trying to kill members of the UN.
Gee Whiz, you are pretty dumb or a Tea Partier.
What is causing mayhem around the globe, visit http://www.limitisthetruth.com/ to find out hidden reasons for conflicts.
United Nations is a bias, ineffective organization. It is all about money and power here. The countries with the most money, dangerous weapons have a say and others are just attending members. Scrap the crap, an organization that every countries of the world will have equal rights, vetos, and contribute the same fund should be establish. U.S in so many years of took advantage of the so-called U.N. An organisation that can not critizes the use of illegal drones, invasion of other countries, can not solve give accurate report of war, can not bring to justice war criminals, can not settle conflicts, countless ........
In many ways you're right. But unfortunately, might makes right! A UN that tries to oppose the major powers becomes even more irrelevant. It frustrates the Americans when the Russians and Chinese oppose them - that's when they decide to go it alone (like in Iraq) or just withdraw from the world (as many Americans, especially of the Republican ilk, would shortsightedly prefer). Equally, it frustrates the rest of the world when America pushes its way through the UN. But perhaps this is the best we can get. Historical forces are inevitable and and the American influence will decline...
UN was created for one purpose: to prevent action and escalation of conflict between superpowers into another World War. Whatever else people expect from it is very much wishful thinking.
The UN is exactly as effective as its member states want it to be. It's a political tool of diplomacy. The Americans go it alone (like Iraq – much good did that do) or influence the UN. However powerful the US is, it's not match to the rest of the world combined (thank heavens!!!).
The U.N. is a theater with high overhead.
The arab league and the Muslim Nations need to care of their own. When are they going to stand up?
The muslims will not stand up for their own because if they do, they will not be able to blame America.
If the United Nations is dissolved it would be easy to trip World War Three reducing the overpopulated regions to less than 1/3 the current size within four years. This would occur within ten years of dissolving the U.N. and is not a good thing….
Blinkers, I also think the worldbody be dissolved and replaced by regional blocks (e,g., Asia, Africa, Europe etc) which should work independently in the interest of their own region but when there are global issues then these blocks should cooperate and work together for the common good of all countries.
The principal purpose of the UN is theater.
Diplomacy is a performance art, and the UN building is our Grand Ole Opry.
Sometimes audience members like Mr Klein are swept up in the emotion, and forget it isn't real.
But don't worry, the performers are not confused, they are professionals.
We subscribe to the school of thought (as propagated by many commentators on this forum most prominent being @krm1007 ©™) that these G2/4/6/8/20 etc, IMF, World Bank and UN et al have lived their utility and should be undone.
An elected world government should emerge based on democratic principles of one person one vote. There will be no veto powers. The center of seat will be based in developing countries
The world will be run by China and India then: one person one vote logic will get you there. Just stop dreaming and start thinking instead.
Are you brain dead? One person one vote does not mean India or China. I am all for a new system.
Agreed. I have heard enough of all these clowns... UN etc. I would like to see UN Headquarters turn into shelter for homeless.
If you're not allowed to use force, how you can keep peace?
If the problem include Muslims or Islam, nuke the place. PROBLEM SOLVED. within a week, all mulsims country will be destroyed and the world will be a lot closer to peace.
The U.N lost its peace keeping mandate the day they sent the Palestinians into refugee camps and gave their country to other people to create new country
There are a couple of fundamental realities that have to be faced with respect to the United Nations. First, short of the United Nations becoming a world government with its own independent military, the U.N. ultimately cannot go against the will of the major powers in the world. That is to say, that the U.N. is only reliably effective in cases where there is true unanimity amongst the world's major powers. And second, as long as the world's powers feel at liberty to undermine the U.N. (as the U.S. has done more than once in the past), the U.N.'s credibility will always be somewhat weak.
Ultimately the U.N. functions by consensus of the major powers and to be effective the members must recognize that there will be instances where consensus cannot be reached and so the U.N. will a very limited role in such situations.
United nation is not, what has been hind, propagated in hindu Judaism filthy self center ism secularism to hind fool humanity but a hindu filthy tool to make humanity gentile slave to few hindu Jew's, filthy secular s, deniers of truth absolute, functioning not as they hind, lie to hind, fool humanity, but in hinduism, disregard to truth absolute, hindu Jew's, terrorist secular s and their hindu gentile, terrorist slave Christians profess but never confess by their hindu, blinded hearts. Visit http://www.limitisthetruth.com/ to find out reasons for their hinduism, terrorism against humanity.
From the perspective of those soldiers who are part of any U.N. operation which is supposed to be peacekeeping they probably have very little inherent motivation to be involved. Ther primarily loyalty will be to their countries of origin and/or to whomever pays their wages, and if their wages are mediocre they likely will take advantage of whatever situation to which they have been dispatched by augmenting their pay by whatever opportunities are available. As has been reported a consequence has been that the so-called peacekeepers are as much or more a problem as or than that to which they have been sent supposedly to help to sort out.
The UN will never be any better than it's 192 members. It is run by the members and It is not democratic where a majority can decide because some members have veto power like the US, China, France, England and Russia. That is why they should stick to the relief programs that most countries can agree on.
The US should get out of the UN and the UN should get out of the US.
That is the MOST IMPORTANT statement of the XXI century. We should all have it stamped on our skin. "THE US OUT OF THE UN and THE UN OUT of THE US"
When the disfunctional League of Nations went to hell, what followed? Be careful what you ask for, the world situation
today is more dangerous than anytime since WW II. The last thing thing any of us need is another world war. Preach peace not war. I have no desire to surrender my life for geo politics.
Where did my comment go !? some times it seems even data,s smell bad and shout out the comment to recycle-bin!??
CNN has gone way down the ladder of media objectivity and I am sure there are millions of freelance reporter who write excellent article then this non sense. 1)The UN entered Syria as a player for the West and the Qatar-Saudi controlled Arab League . 2) Syria gave consent to the UN observers because they had to show willingness to resolve the crisis peacefully. 3) Under cover of the UN observers restraining orders of the Syrian Army, rebels and arms were infiltrated into Syria via Turkey, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq. 4) Rebels were ordered to attack cities and villages to show gains so that talks prepared by Kofi Annan would sound between equal parties. 5) Syrian Army removed heavy arms from cities which were in turn invaded by international mercenaries brought in by Hariri-Qatar-Saudi alliance. 6) Saad Hariri son of killed Rafic Hariri swore to avenge his father even if all of his billions were to be spent, hence the destructionof Syria. 7) Failed UN attempt because Syrian Army did not fall in the game and responded to fire by stronger fire and to mercenaries by special units that fought back regaining "rebel gains"... Now does the world believe that the Syrian Army and its people will not defend their country? Where is this western illusion take the UN to? The UN has indeed become a wasted and unnecessary organization which was playing the western powers rules but that cannot anymore because the rest of the world has taking control of their destiny.
well said, adam!
You don't need to infiltrate when you live in Syria. Asaad is a dictator whom controls the loyalty of his henchmen armed forces. The population is only neede for his luxories, power and wealth. This time next year he will be Kadafy's neighbor.
The UN has become a useless political organization with no principles, no vision, no mission statement. The US should withdraw all funding from the UN until it drafts a mission statement and principles accepted by the members. Kick anyone out who doesn't agree.
dd, i think un should abandon its new york headquarter and move somewhere in asia......let us have the building for themselves! Asia would bea better place for smaller and developing countries of the world.
The science parts of the UN work well such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) but the political arm of the UN is a joke especially the Security Council with its veto powers. East and West drew their sides decades ago and nothing has changed because its easy to use your veto.
The world nations n its members has to respect the efforts given by U.N thru their peacekeeping team or resolutions passed thru the Security Council n so far what we have seen diplomacy gone astray resulting frm political ideologies that taught their soldiers even policymakers to 'fight' against any form of peace efforts frm U.N n they dare to appear bfore U.N n speak of human rights n obligations even rule of law less they realize making a mockery of U.N!
Who says peace is acquired through peace?
You gotta knock a few muslim heads.
Then, they pay attention.
If muzzies bomb you once, you, in turn, bomb them 100 times, wait 20 minutes and bomb them another 100 times.
We should emplode the UN building, kick all the alleged ambassadors out of the country, and build something useful on that lot with the river view. Just think of all the money we would save and use elsewhere like funding schools or funding a live bugler to play taps for our fallen heros.
Frank, you would have us build a mosque in place of the UN?
Something like the UN is vital for the world. A real UN, not the present one. I therefore think that the idea of creating a new UN is not completely far-fetched.
frank, people like you can make anything unworkable! you show real arrogance so its reflected in your country's policies towards other humanity.
The UN Security Council has a mandate to intervene when world peace is threatened. This is exactly the case in Syria. Like a referee between two boxers, the UN Security Council has a right and duty to stop the fight that represents too much of a threat and causes too much bloodshed! It is shameful that the Superpowers are staying on the sidelines, watching this massacre with the same pleasure some people watch a dog fight! The shame, primarily, falls on Putin and Hu Jintao, but also on Obama and the UN Security Council!
We now need to focus on India. The American invasion of Afghanistan brought to the forefront the irrelevance of India as a nation. With a population of over 1.2 billion people there was no value that this nation could bring to the table. Their soldiers (ragtag) 1.2 million continue hiding in the trenches scared from Talibans. A few teenage Talibans invaded the country and held it hostage for days on end showing how useless India is. It was embarrasing for the world to observe this humiliation of a nation that was being touted as a regional power.
We continue to read with interest the thesis presented on CNN that "less is more" in a political context as applied to India. Although Mies Van Der Rohe adopted this in an architectural context, its economic and political connotations are indeed powerful. Empowering subjugated minorities in India by splitting it into smaller states would trigger uber economic demand for western nations who have given so much financial and technology aid to India with no return to show for the investment. We concur with this approach and find the premise to be on solid footing. Central Asian States (CAS) are a case in point on this successful approach. We need to understand that India has an unmanageable large population mired in poverty and we are spinning our wheels trying to feed it. It is also too big of a geographical unit to govern. Again, we saw how a few teenage talibans were able to invade it with a few BB guns. And that says a lot... in a negative way not only for a large unmanageable country like India but also for USA which is trying to prop it up against China. Besides, Americans cannot afford to look like losers in the midst of a terror war which has lasted for over ten years now.
HINDU KALI – GODDESS OF VIOLENCE/TERRORISM
A recent report by United Press trust of India (UPI) stated that during the past three years more than 2,500 young boys and girls were sacrificed to goddess Kali in India. Another of AFP's recent reports say: hundreds of young boys and virgin girls are sacrificed every month for the deity Kali. In one case Rama Sewak hacked his eight year old son to death in broad daylight in Delhi because goddess Kali had told him he would come back to life and bring him good fortune. Bloodthirsty Kali is worshipped openly the length and breadth of India. Kali's statue stands naked astride the inanimate body of the Hindu deity Shiva, tongue stuck out with blood dripping from fang-like teeth. She holds a noose, a skull-topped staff, a blood-encrusted sword and a severed head. She is also known as Durga, Devi, Shaktima, Uma and Parvathi in other manifestations. The priest of Delhi, Kali Bari, says that a child sacrificed to Kali ensures a man the birth of a son. Human sacrifices are also made to these gods or goddesses, either to appease them or to ask favours of them.
If UN has lost peacekeeping mandate: it can always re-issue one. After all, it is the only organisation which was authorised to do so: at least the last time I have checked. Or have I missed something: and it is all under US control now?
Brian Klein's article is interesting but short on advocacy. So I will add what he has left out. First, his main premise is that "the UN supra-national force has never been a realistic fighting military. It lacks the command, control, intelligence and weaponry to stop war once it has begun." This is an excellent observation. What is sorely missing, is the conclusion. Syria example indicates that the UN supra-national force needs to be instantly quantupled!. In other words, it needs (1) 25 billion more for military peace-keeping operations; (2) it needs a standing army strong enough to disarm any smaller size country which is in a state of civil war; and (3) it needs a command that can act on an instant's notice! tens of thousands of lives would have been spared, if such a force wsa sent to Ruanda, or Syria! And by the way, 25 billion is lots of money, but not for 200 nations! Moreover,the peace that wold be created would pay for itself tenfold!
The problem is not with the UN it is with countries like the US who undermine the UNs position and seek to turn regional tensions to their own advantage.
the un never had enough power to make lasting peace. it was a stop gap measure by the usa to look more peaceful and to bring major powers in line with our ecnomic agenda after ww2. it would have to have sweeping militarial powers that no country wants to give it. basicly it is a diplomatic front to resolve small issues and to keep tyrannical dictators at the meeting table. it is starting to fail and will collapse with the outbreak of ww3.
This article totally misunderstands the meaning of peacekeeping. When troops are sent in to become another faction in a civil war, that isn't peacekeeping. When the two sides of a conflict have come to terms with the fact that neither is going to win, the UN can successfully introduce troops as a confidence building measure that will prevent reigniting the violence. Peacekeeping works when it is actual peacekeeping.
Mr. Brian Klein,
Are you stupid or are you trying to sound stupid?
What if guys from Brooklyn together with guys from LA, Chicago, etc all got armed by Russia and China saying we do not want Obama because he is black, because he is from a minority tribe (blacks in the US)?
You have a sitting president in the name of Assad, in whatever way he got the job, he is still the president! He was not out killing people until the people were armed by you know who and were told to go and take him out.
What can the UN do about it? Now we see Brahimi getting into the act as if he had nothing better to do!
This is an all-out fight to get rid of Assad and Assad is not going to take it lying down! Would you?
Who is the UN anyway? It is you and me!
AND THE UN COULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, BUT WILL THE USUAL SUSPECTS ALLOW IT TO DO WHAT IT WAS SET UP TO DO?
INSTEAD OF SENDING THE PUNY COUPLE OF HUNDRED MILOBS, IT SHOULD HAVE SENT IN A REGULAR PEACE-KEEPING FORCE OF ABOUT TEN BATALLIONS TO INTERPOSE BETWEEN THE BELLIGERENTS UNTIL A DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION WAS FOUND.
BUT YOU KNOW DAMN WELL THAT IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! SO GET OFF BASHING THE UN!
Brian, accepting your piece as a glass half empty contribution with a number of valid points, I would like to offer that a lot of peacekeeping on the ground involves individual relationships at micro level in order to improve lives. While UN missions provide security at an enormous financial cost, they do prevent conflict and save lives even if mostly by mere presence. Indeed I think perhaps most of the good done by the UN is at such a community-level that there is too many examples of micro-assistance but not enough in the middle to strategic level to broadcast/trumpet as successes.
There are a littany of issues that need to be worked on as you have rightly pointed out, but I disagree that it is realistic to direct attention away from diplomacy and statesmenship to focus at micro-level. Indeed, in my opinion, any effort to go to either extreme will be destined to fail. Efforts to secure and develop populations need to be complemented by good governance and sustainable infrastructure (as well as realistic resourcing in all areas).
The situations that the UN attempts to address are at the highest levels of complexity this world has to face and while the organization is a massive bureaucracy, I am not aware of any proposed bodies even remotely close to being capable of what the UN is. The veto system remains in place in order for the system to function. If one day the P5 feel they can surrender the veto process they may do so, but for now it is obviously a necessary evil in order to keep everyone at the table.
Finally, Syria is another example of where the UN contribution was a toothless tiger and no doubt people continued dying throughout, but there have been other reasonable results in areas where the UN has been involved, such as the creation of South Sudan or Timor-Leste. Although these are among many UN examples where huge inefficiencies are the cost of bringing together so many nations to work alongside each other, they are examples where nations have achieved their goal of self-determination. There are many complexities, such as Abyei and Darfur in the Sudan/South Sudan process, but nonetheless, I would suggest the UN is still the best organization to administer world peacekeeping. I would suggest there remains a strong role for bilateral assistance and perhaps the EU, AU, NATO, ASEAN (one day) and other regional groups may forge some sort of ongoing agreement to provide more cohesive deployments, but for now on a global scale, I would stick with the UN and work on improving it rather than bringing it down.