united nations

theyre*

The UN is infecting water supplies with cholera and raping civilians "in many cases"?!

there are many cases where they are doing more harm than good. tombot asked me to prove that in many cases they are making things worse than if they didn't exist it all. those 2 should suffice to demonstrate that this isn't something like the libya intervention where we can't counterfactual what would've happened w/out a US engagement. i assume that if you don't send peacekeepers into CAR said peacekeepers don't rape civilians. if you don't station UN in haiti, UN reps don't poison the water. it's not like "this isn't a perfect world and shit happens." this is like "your mission is to take care of people and you're doing the opposite." you need some more examples? this shit has been going on for decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse_by_UN_peacekeepers

"Reporters witnessed a rapid increase in prostitution in Cambodia, Mozambique, Bosnia, and Kosovo after UN and, in the case of the latter two, NATO peacekeeping forces moved in. In the 1996 UN study The Impact of Armed Conflict on Children, former first lady of Mozambique Graça Machel documented: "In 6 out of 12 country studies on sexual exploitation of children in situations of armed conflict prepared for the present report, the arrival of peacekeeping troops has been associated with a rapid rise in child prostitution." [66]"

i haven't even gotten into issues like Rwanda where the UN sat by while genocide was perpetrated or other "peacekeeping" missions (eg, Goma) where they basically just watched as conflict unfolded. their inability to enforce agreements (cf Lebanese disarmament), the fact that the institution is often used as a conduit for the agendas of dictatorial regimes, the accusations of racism against the ICC and its ongoing crisis of legitimacy, etc.

i wouldn't let NATO peacekeepers into my neighborhood but play cpt save-a-un why dontcha

your original statement seemed to indict the entire UN (which of course is a classic oversized, corrupt, bureaucratic shit show in many ways, but not exactly unique among massive institutions), now you're saying it's just peacekeeper interventions that are the problem

My initial intervention (hah) was meant to only address peacekeeping though I think a broad critique of the entire institution would be fairly easy to do. To your point tho I cannot adequately argue that the world would have been better without the UN at all. As a point in their favor there have been no nuclear exchanges on their watch.

My initial intervention (hah) was meant to only address peacekeeping though I think a broad critique of the entire institution would be fairly easy to do. To your point tho I cannot adequately argue that the world would have been better without the UN at all. As a point in their favor there have been no nuclear exchanges on their watch.

Sorry double post

Is your argument that having no external force in Haiti would have been better than having the UN?

There was humanitarian aid and independent non UN affiliated missions in Haiti; you're presenting a false dichotomy

Talking specifically about the function of stabilisation through policing / security rather than humanitarian aid work.

Yeah I have to agree with Mordy there

Having regional partners that have some skin in the game intervene is generally better than having "peacekeepers" from far flung places with possibly little or no experience, I can't disagree with that.

Which regional partners did you have in mind?

imo literally any discrete sovereign nation would have more accountability

Yes, if there's one word that tends to characterise military presence in foreign countries, it's 'accountability'.

There are huge problems with discreet sovereign nations performing these roles. Some are logistical - taking on the responsibility of putting 5k - 10k police officers and soldiers into a difficult and dangerous situation would be close to impossible for any of Haiti's neighbours. Some are cultural - there are not that many Francophone countries to choose and having a Anglo-led, predominantly white US/UK force causes its own challenges. Some are political - France going in on their own to a former colonial vassal against a background of chaos, mass evictions and a hugely divisive election would have been questioned.

Having a force made up of European, Francophone African, North American and Asian soldiers with no obvious political agenda might not be perfect but no solution would have been.

https://twitter.com/AP/status/852084955219996672

BBC News - United States dilutes UN rape-in-war resolution
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48028773

Russia and China abstained for reasons the press don't seem to care about enough to explain.