launchpad
2008-07-04, 12:31
I don't know if this should be in here or in Politics - move it if necessary.
Anyway, I was just thinking about the whole situation in Zimbabwe and I got to pondering the role of the U.N. It seems that even when a situation arises that would seem to be fit for some type of action on the U.N's part - such as ensuring that state sponsored violence against the rural populations in Zimbabwe as well as in Harare comes to an end...basically peacekeeping. This force could have been mainly composed of African troops so that it would be more of a regional balance as opposed to people seeing it as whites meddling in their affairs.
They didn't do this. Instead, while people were being beaten to death in the streets the U.N. struggled to get a motion passed condemning the actions of Mugabe - but even failed to do this due to the power of veto from nations like Russia and China. Instead the U.N. put out a weakly worded yelp of disapproval over the entire situation and left it at that. Zimbabwe is now again faced with another few years of rule by a tyrannical despot and you can be sure that the MDC supporters will be persecuted for the forseeable future.
My question: Do you think that the failures of the U.N. in the past have contributed to their gutlessness today?
Somalia and Rwanda left a bad taste in many mouths over sending U.N. personnel in on the ground level. Everyone says that we must be vigilant to never allow another Rwanda or to be asleep at the switch, but from what I've seen recently it doesn't seem like the international community can do very much at all.
What do you guys think can be done to strengthen the U.N.? Do you think it's possible? What about the use of international personnel being involved in the affairs of sovereign nations? Will this ever work?
Anyway, I was just thinking about the whole situation in Zimbabwe and I got to pondering the role of the U.N. It seems that even when a situation arises that would seem to be fit for some type of action on the U.N's part - such as ensuring that state sponsored violence against the rural populations in Zimbabwe as well as in Harare comes to an end...basically peacekeeping. This force could have been mainly composed of African troops so that it would be more of a regional balance as opposed to people seeing it as whites meddling in their affairs.
They didn't do this. Instead, while people were being beaten to death in the streets the U.N. struggled to get a motion passed condemning the actions of Mugabe - but even failed to do this due to the power of veto from nations like Russia and China. Instead the U.N. put out a weakly worded yelp of disapproval over the entire situation and left it at that. Zimbabwe is now again faced with another few years of rule by a tyrannical despot and you can be sure that the MDC supporters will be persecuted for the forseeable future.
My question: Do you think that the failures of the U.N. in the past have contributed to their gutlessness today?
Somalia and Rwanda left a bad taste in many mouths over sending U.N. personnel in on the ground level. Everyone says that we must be vigilant to never allow another Rwanda or to be asleep at the switch, but from what I've seen recently it doesn't seem like the international community can do very much at all.
What do you guys think can be done to strengthen the U.N.? Do you think it's possible? What about the use of international personnel being involved in the affairs of sovereign nations? Will this ever work?