spynverzyon:
Your comments merely underscore the fundamental, intractable defect of the UN: the UN is accountable to no democratically established rule of law, and in fact merely serves to grant legitimacy to the oppressive governments of the very same countries that sponsor these rapacious “peacekeepers.”
The countries that contribute militarily to UNMIS are: Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, China, Croatia, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgystan, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Moldova, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Tanzania, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unmis/facts.html).
Could you be more specific about which of these countries you believe have “oppressive governments” (you refer to them later as “lawless states, also) that sponsor “rapacious peacekeepers”? There are a few governments in there which are not especially pleasant, but I’m interested to know which you particularly object to.
You suggest that somebody should “propose measures that will actually have a positive impact on the lives of people in places like Sudan, rather than just more criticism that completely misses the point” but the only solution you seem to hint at is that somehow, somebody should “go after” the countries (such as Bangladesh) that should be held to account.
What I said was “Let’s try and propose measures that will actually have a positive impact”, by which I hoped that I might get intelligent responses suggesting how to deal with this critical issue. I can offer my ideas if you want, but I’m more interested in hearing what you have to say.
Since you admit that the UN has no mandate for accountability, it seems you must be advocating one of the following options:
Strawman argument. I have not specifically advocated either of the options that you outline, nor have I implied them.
Regarding the first option, I doubt that anyone who, like you, supports the basic premise of the UN’s existence, would approve what the U.S. would have to do to clean up the corruption, incompetence, and outright brutality that infects so much of what the UN does.
Tell me what the U.S. would have to do to clean up the U.N. and I’ll tell you if I approve of it or not. Until I hear specifically what you have to say, I can’t really comment on it.
Regarding the second option, the one sensible thing you have said on this thread is that “none of us will accept a US soldier being tried by (for example) the government of Iraq.” Indeed – the U.S. should never allow its constitutional principles to be superseded by the powers of a body that plays host to Assad, Ahmedinejad, Kim, and other such parasitic vermin.
Another strawman argument. I was not referring to US soldiers being tried by the UN, but to US soldiers being tried by the government of the country that they might commit offences in. (Incidentally, I don’t think they should be tried by the UN either.)
I went on to say that “I assume you would want the same approach for any soldier, no matter which country they came from.” Are you arguing that there is one rule for the US and another rule for everybody else when it comes to soldiers’ rights?
No amount of “reform” will change this, since the collective, Utopian principle on which the UN is founded is hopelessly flawed.
So really this isn’t about peacekeepers at all, but about the basic principle of collective action on which the UN is founded. I don’t really know where we can go with that argument, since I believe that principle is an admirable one. However I will ask again: please let us know what you think the alternative is.
