We discussed the future of international peacekeeping with the head of the UN in Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi.
The violent confrontations of the past weeks in Iraq and Liberia have raised the question of how conflict situations should be handled by the international community. Iraq, the most prominent troubled spot, is currently policed by the US-led force, while in Afghanistan, peacekeeping operations have been led by Nato.
However, calls for the UN to take control of the peacekeeping operations there are growing ever louder.
The UN runs 14 peacekeeping missions around the world, in places such as Kosovo, East Timor and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The past decade has been marked by a proliferation of UN peacekeeping operations, also witnessed string of its failures like Rwanda or Bosnia where there was no clear mandate.
What is the future of peacekeeping? Whose responsibility peacekeeping should be? When and why should peacekeepers be deployed? What could be other ways of dealing with the troubles in the world?
This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.
As a forum for debate, the UN must be inclusive. This means that a large portion of UN membership consists of governments that can't be trusted not to kill their own people when it suits them. By allowing every type of government to participate, the UN does lose its claim on the moral high ground. I don't believe any free country would really want their troops commanded by an organization that treats mass murderers the same as elected officials. This is why the future of peacekeeping lies with individual governments or smaller alliances. The UN can't be everything. If it wishes to become a moral authority, then it needs to hold its members to standards. By doing so, it would lose its effectiveness as an open forum.
Jim , NJ, USA
The very concept all of the world's nations working together to make the world a better place sounds great but it is impossible. Nations have dramatically different views of how the world should be. China wants a communist world, the Arabs envision a world without an Israel, the French want the US the be a second rate power and the US wants a world that is democratic and capitalist. Because of these diverging views the UN will never take bold steps in either direction. The world will be shaped by the nation with the most wealth and military force.
Colin Keesee, USA
While some would like to blame the "failure" of the UN on the US, let us be clear on this. The "failure" of the UN is entirely by design. It was never intended as a body of action, but rather a forum in which to air grievances - no more. Nations themselves must deal with the problems of the world. Much of the world seems to forget this when it is convenient for them to do so.
Jeff, Alexandria, VA, USA The UN peacekeeping has been used a battle field to take score of opponent member countries. They should stay away from this dirty politics. This should be addressed first before going after any country for restoring peace.
Gurudutt, Chicago, USA
The UN should be ultimately responsible for peace keeping but they keep letting things get out of hand before dealing with them. Also does the UN plan to subsidise countries defence budgets to cope? I know the UK's forces are overstretched and under funded due to extensive peace keeping missions (and years of under funding and mismanagement) which the government wants them to participate in but has a hard time funding and supplying logistically.
One main problem is the US undermining the UN, The US and UK set up the UN to prevent conflict. The US seems to forget that when it doesn't get its way.
Bill Pellett, Brighton, UK
The UN is very ineffective, it always wait until the crisis is out of hand, sometimes year and many deaths before they will step in. My faith is lost with the UN. It would lesson the burden of the US if they did do there job correctly. Until the world stop excepting dictator as ruler of a country we will always have these kinds of problem.
Joseph Brown, USA
The U.N. has proved over and over that it is incapable of handling international issues, as proved by Somalia, Burundi and the D.R.C. The reason is that many nations in the U.N. have corrupt dictatorship governments. Their logic is "if I condone intervention in say the Solomon Islands or Zimbabwe, what's to say tomorrow the U.N. won't intervene in my nation". Peacekeeping should be done by nations who are free, and I'm not just talking about the U.S - Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan Europe and some African/S.American nations are included. Although they're not perfect, they know what democracy is.
Antiego DiRado, U.S.A.
In my view Bush has killed the UN. It now only exists to do what the Americans want. If anyone tries to stop an American initiative the USA will just go ahead and do whatever it wants. Thank you USA for destroying the only global organisation that ever stood a chance of speaking for the whole world and not just US oil interests
Neal Bebbington, Cambridge, UK
 |  Peace keeping was never about peace, it was about stability  |
Peace keeping was never about peace, it was about stability. When Lester Pearson proposed the first peace keeping force it was not to stop violence, it was to protect the Suez Canal so that international commerce would not be interrupted. Ultimately the best thing the UN can do is to reform. The Security Council no longer reflects the real world situation and in all honesty the General Assembly has become a second class lobbing club. If the UN could simply become a facilitator of discussion between states who should and do make their own military decisions then that would be a step in the right direction.
Tim, Montreal Canada The UN Needs more than peacekeepers who have to work with both hands tied, it needs an active military force. All too often the UN is hamstrung by nations that act in their own interests and who have no desire to see the rule of law applied elsewhere. The peacekeepers themselves face guerrilla warfare in areas where, likewise, it is against the interests of certain parties to promote the rule of law. If we want real leadership from the UN, we have to be prepared to yield authority to the UN. We need to two things to fundamentally change the way the UN works: firstly, directly elect the UN officials on a world-wide basis and secondly, yield up a proportion of our own armed forces to the unconditional use by the UN.
Kelvin Walker, Gloucestershire, UK
We can never bring peace in the world by encouraging violent ways. The act of US invading Iraq to me is an act of violence and should be punished by the UN. However, on the contrary such mistakes go unpunished. With this kind of trend the UN will be seen as working for interests of a few powerful countries in the world and not all countries.
Suleiman, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
The UN is only as strong as its members. When we decry the UN, we are really pointing out the heartlessness of Americans, Brits, French, Germans, Chinese, Russians, etc...
Bill, UK
Peacekeeping is often confused with its evil twin "peacemaking". This latter is entirely a different proposition and should be entered into with caution and with expectations of deaths and other bad consequences.
jl ronish, auburn
The UN is a pathetic collection of "spokesmen" for world affairs. It should be disbanded as it is increasingly becoming a political football. It has failed more than it has succeeded in trying to police the world.
David, Johannesburg South Africa
When I hear Americans saying that the UN has no power or teeth I am shocked at there ignorance as to assume that the whole problems of the world will be solved by power and might. I think they miss a big part of different cultures that make the UN and dismiss them all because they are not interested in becoming Americans , to them if the whole world became like US it would be OK and there would be no problems. The UN represents the Planet not just a few hundred million people that make up NATO. If you think the UN has no future just look at what great peace keeping the coalition is doing in IRAQ right know.
Antonio C M, Sydney Australia Has there been any "peacekeeping" mission that was successful? The UN mandate is to not interfere with the internal affairs of any country. Peacekeeping missions are but a dream brought about by the desire to eliminate human suffering.
Charlie, Kentucky, USA
We cannot help these countries because they clearly do not help themselves. These governments and societies are content to live without basic rights, freedoms & responsibilities. Stop peacekeeping & immigration and leave them to it. Only charities & churches should step in to support the innocent and weak.
D. D. Mailes, Ubach, Germany
I think that the existing UN Security council (which is mostly responsible deciding on peacekeeping operations) is nothing more than a sham. It is obvious that the five permanent members are primarily driven by their own national interests - rather than the overall good of humanity. The best example here would be to think of the Iraq war and question the stand taken by the French/Chinese in favour of a tyrant like Saddam - was it only driven by moralistic desires, or rather their own national business interests. Its time that the security council is expanded to include countries like India, South Africa, Brazil etc to make it a more representative body.
Nitesh, India
There needs to be fundamental changes in the way the UN is run. Too often the power of veto is used by the permanent members of the Security Council for their own domestic means and international leverage. Restrictions should be placed on the type of veto allowed or a separate body empowered by the General Assembly should be established to deal with international peace keeping. For too long have vicious wars and human rights atrocities been allowed to continue unabated because it was not in the interest of one of the Security Council members to want to intervene.
Connie Wessels, London, UK
| Despite all the western attempts to discredit them, the Ecowas/Ecomil unit have done a great job |
The future of peacekeeping is whatever we let it be. Bush is right. It's all about coalitions of the willing. Hand-wringers versus initiative-takers. Despite all the western attempts to discredit them, the Ecowas/Ecomil unit have done a great job. The killing has stopped and Taylor has gone all within a week. Responsibility is a matter of discretion, Kenya (7th largest contributor of peacekeeping troops to the UN believe it or not!) has peacekeeping troops in Bosnia and had some in Sierra Leone which is closer to the UK than to Kenya both politically and geographically. It all comes down to who's willing and able and who's not. Just like the UN, it's a matter of political will. The future and the effectiveness of the UN and peacekeeping are whatever the member states decide they will be. It's as simple and as tragic as that.
Amoroso Gombe, Kenya The ability of one or more countries to veto a UN decision severely jeopardises its ability to make and stand by any decisions. If one power can overrule the majority decision of a security council then it is possible for the former super powers to determine UN policy to suit there own means. Petty squabbling and a failure to give peacekeeping forces the correct mandates because of compromise to suit all pushes decision making outside the walls of the UN and leads to unilateral action. This unilateral action leads to resentment of the now "occupying force" and condemnation of a morally right but technically illegal act of aggression.
Graham McLaughlin, Bath, UK
Prior to the Iraq war there was only one peacekeeper and it was UN. But after the US and UK bypassed the UN and invaded Iraq (illegally) for their self interest (read for OIL and not for freedom of Iraqi people) there is no future for the UN. In turn there is no future of International Peacekeeping.
Jonhy, USA
Peacekeeping has never been easy. In the nineties an explosion of conflicts from Somalia, Rwanda, Cambodia, Haiti, Bosnia, to Kosovo were thrust on the UN. Disagreements within the Security Council and general opposition to the UN organization politically in the US meant that resources were withheld and authorization was often too late. The UN does not have resources for combat and this resulted in the breakdown of its mission in Bosnia in the face of hostilities. In Kosovo, the UN was shut out by NATO forces. This pattern has continued in Afghanistan and especially Iraq. So the future of UN peacekeeping is in jeopardy.
Ralph Sato, USA
Best way is to send peace keepers to the country to avoid human crisis. But in most cases the UN waits for the crisis to escalate and get out of hand before they intervene. The main aim of the UN is to bring peace to the world; it is a united body that could solve problems. If the international community finds out that there is problem ahead of a country or nation called the both parties for dialogue, instead of sitting and waiting. I think its time for the UN to find another means of resolving conflict around the world, especially in Africa.
Alfred T.R. Nyorbay, Assab Eritrea The UN should be responsible for peacekeeping. The way to ensure more effective peacekeeping is for us to campaign for a more democratic and effective General Assembly of the United Nations. Only once this is achieved will peacekeeping be used appropriately and effectively, instead of a fig-leaf used to cover the real intentions of so-called humanitarian intervention which in almost every case so far has been illegitimate.
Mark Gallagher, Glasgow, Scotland
The problem of peace keeping is not hopeful as powerful countries like the USA continue to do things and go unpunished. The UN should be empower to do peace keeping, and they should be involve in peace keeping when there's an action by any group that tends to threaten the stability of her own people and that of others. One way we can stop some of these problems is by making the UN even stronger than what it is to enable it penalize countries for their involvements in ugly acts. I strongly believe that the UN can be that force that can give us peace on the globe.
Isaac Dahn, Buduburam Camp, Accra
On more than one occasion the UN have failed us when they were about to help. They went about seeking to do something about it but at too slow a pace. This may or may not be true looking from different standpoints but the world it seems is more like the UN than you would like think; We all disagree about how to find world peace or who is in wrong and with six billion people around, conflict of interest is bound to happen. We can talk about how to solve things in the world but doing what is necessary is the next step we need to make, and we need to make it now.
Christopher, Bangkok, Thailand
Some people believe that their own countries are not responsible for crises and escalations all over the world. But they should understand that the others who live in dangerous and unbearable conditions are in need for the peacekeepers to help them. UN peacekeeping has obviously proved to be one of the explicit ways to settle many troubles in the world. The role of the UN peacekeeping should be expanded and enhanced rather than looking for other ways of dealing with troubles. I believe Millions of people all over the world are still waiting for the UN peacekeepers. Hopefully they are not going to wait and suffer a long time.
B.A Belal, Amman Jordan
I am all for peace keeping, where that means helping people to help themselves. International peace keeping is like having a mediator in a workplace dispute; it provides a framework in which problems can be resolved. To suggest that problems abroad are not any of our business is rather ostrich-like; "Do not send for whom the bell tolls - it tolls for thee." As for the place of the UN in peace keeping, I am rather more ambivalent. Having the UN's approval does not make an immoral act right, and lacking such approval does not make a moral act wrong. The UN is simply a way to help nations to cooperate. To suggest that to act outside of the UN is illegitimate is to miss the point. The UN gains its legitimacy from the legitimacy of its constituent states; they do not gain their legitimacy from the UN.
Bernard Jones, Hobart, Australia Undoubtedly the UN ought to mandate any peacekeeping operation, but actual forces and organizations involved could be regional or international. Each peacekeeping operation is unique, therefore, the parties involved in creating the conditions for peace and stability need simply be proportional to the needs of the situation. With that said, the need for effective peacekeeping far outweighs the political will of the Security Council. Until the decision-making process of the UN is restructured in a way that truly reflects the makeup of the international community the needs will continue to be greater than the political will.
Michael Ronning, Minnesota, USA
I have visited Kosovo twice in the last year. You get a clear reminder of what can happen when peace breaks down for whatever reason. The UN is burdened with administrative problems which in the Balkans lead to the death and suffering of many innocent people. Having said that I still believe that no single country can afford to or should police the world, hence the UN needs to be at the epicentre of conflict resolution, but with a clear mandate. Thinking back to the Balkans, if you go in to keep the peace you have to be prepared to go to war with both sides, win, then impose peace. As a Brit I would far prefer to see England positively working towards fixing the problems within the UN and use our relationship with the US and other countries to convince them to follow our example. Global peace and harmony peace should always be the goal - pure and simple. No country or group of countries can police that. It is a global issue.
tom, Stockholm
Unfortunately, history shows us that the only times the UN has successfully stopped a war was when force, or threat of force, was used. Just having 'troops on the ground' won't stop people who want to fight. It'll merely provide targets for Terrorists exploiting the turmoil in the area. While war is one of the worst things that can happen to a nation, sometimes I think we have to step back and let one side or the other win. Or else the whole thing will flare up again in a few weeks/months/years.
James M, Glasgow, Scotland The UN should be ultimately responsible for peacekeeping, but if it wants to fully represent world opinion then every issue should involve a vote from every country, weighted by population. Instead we have an exclusive organisation led by the countries who put in most money, and who can veto any decision not in their favour.
Tim, Nottingham, UK
I think the only route towards a calmer, more peaceful world is to restore the UN to its role as peacekeeper, the way it was before the US "took over" that role, and then themselves became the biggest threat to world peace. Clearly US intervention in foreign matters is detrimental to both the sovereignty of each nation and the safety of their citizens. The world needs to band together and issue a clear message to the US that it will not allow a global dictatorship, it will not allow pre-emptive striking by a first-world power, and it will not accept lies without putting up a fight. Only then will world peace again have a chance.
Paul Whannel, Des Moines, Iowa, US
There are many different routes which peacekeeping may take ranging from basically unilateral operations (such as Iraq) to multilateral operations (such as Bosnia). Peacekeeping should be the collective responsibility of the international community because, in this globalized environment, even the most remote conflicts are bound to adversely impact external nation-states. Right now, the UN is our best institution for organizing missions for the international community. However, it is also clear that the UN is nothing more than the sum of its parts and their are key states who lack the foresight to realizing that cooperation is essential to a more peaceful global environment. This is a huge roadblock which must be overcome if peacekeeping is to have a more viable future. If we truly desire to make an effort to curb political violence within nation-states, the development of a standing multilateral military force is essential. This ad-hoc system of confronting atrocities after the fact is doing little to nothing for preventative measures. The ICC is a step in this direction, but again I must allude to specific administrations which drastically hinder the ability of such momentous moves to be fully realized. I am not one to sit here and bash America, it is far too easy and is done far too often. However, as a person who desires to be a member of the international community, to be seen as a human and not as citizen, I am truly embarrassed and upset by the perpetual short-sighted, unilateral actions of my government.
Martin Zanin, Virginia, USA
This may sound rather heartless but I think in some cases, the international community should keep out and let the locals sort out their own mess. The Taleban would never have lasted. The Afghans would have risen against them. Look at history, the Afghans have never been lorded over for long. Iraq is a similar case. Saddam would have died soon and his sons would not have held the country in such a tight fist of fear. OK. People would have died as a result of the international community (is there such a thing?) doing nothing but the end result would be far more stable as the conflicts would have been resolved at a local level, with a structure considerate to the local political culture.
Anon, UK
UN peacekeeping usually means in real terms substantial American military presence. At the moment, America is so angry at much of the rest of the world that it is in no mood to listen to other nations clamouring to tell it what to do, where it can and can't send its troops, and where and how to spend its treasure. America's reluctance to enter Liberia and then to send only a token force with a secondary role is a taste of what is to come. If other countries want the UN to be a peacekeeping force, then they'd better start thinking about what they should be doing now and stop bellyaching about America's role in every crisis.
Mark, USA
| You cannot bring peace to a country whose very nature thrives on war |
What is peacekeeping but a temporary measure for keeping enemies apart, thus allowing them time to re-arm? You cannot bring peace to a country whose very nature thrives on war. We in the West believe that our way is the only way but it doesn't travel well. We play god but really we are only interested in keeping trouble at arms length. Out of sight out of mind or put another way - the perpetuation of our wealth.
RC Robjohn, UK One reason for the UN�s frequently criticised ineffectiveness most probably are the endless negotiations until the "Big Five" reach consensus, before - often much too late - action is taken at last. Nevertheless, some UN missions are regarded as successful, Cyprus for instance. Concerning the veto power, I believe this is still better than majority votes with western democracies being outvoted by dictators and heinous regimes.
Ursula, Regensburg, Germany
People forget that the UN is the sum of its parts. When its most important parts (e.g. the US and the UK) bypass the UN, it is declawed. That is not the 'fault' of the UN - it is the result of its internal rules, which assume that countries will work with it, not against it. Perhaps it's time to overhaul the UN to deal with today's wars rather than yesterday's - and give it some independent teeth.
Katherine, London, UK
Let's face it. The UN is useless and has no real power or authority to exert control over an area in conflict. It is only the threat of individual strong nations who could also intervene militarily, that keeps the UN as the first line of defence, working. As long as nations like France sit on the security council, the UN is impotent.
James, Kansas City, KS USA
The biggest challenge to peace is simply the US and its allies. They flaunt international rules at will, and impose other rules selectively. To top it all the UN is nothing but a wing of the US that upon being asked by the US to jump, will ask "how high?"
Ramsden, UK
| Peacekeeping in general should be responsibility of the neighbouring countries |
Peacekeeping in general should be responsibility of the neighbouring countries. In Iraq the US and Britain together with the other major powers have interests. When these interests clash with the locals, who have interests of their own, it will cause problems rather than solutions. Arab countries should form their own peacekeeping forces, but the problem is most of Iraq's neighbours are undemocratic regimes.
Khalil, Denmark Peacekeeping by itself does not work. There are still peacekeepers in the Balkans and the recent fighting in Liberia started when peacekeepers left a decade ago. In order for peacekeeping to be successful, the nation affected must be able to build a responsible government with a capable security apparatus before peacekeepers leave. Otherwise, peacekeepers are just delaying the fighting.
Jim, NJ, USA
I served in Bosnia during the changeover from UN to Nato. And what a difference it made. One day we were being walked all over by warring factions who knew that our rules of engagement were so prohibitive as to be useless. The next, out came the tanks & heavy armourment, one or two minor spats & the factions knew not to mess as we now meant business & that they would be legitimate targets. Only then did peace start to happen!
Ben, England
To answer this question the distinction between peacekeeping and peacemaking has to be made. Without the consent of the host nation it is impossible to conceive of peacekeeping (as the US is discovering to its cost in Iraq) and troops must therefore be engaged in peacemaking. To enforce peace, against the will of either warring factions or a hostile population requires authority that can only be accorded by the international community and must be backed up by both military force and political will. This distinction is surely obvious and can be witnessed in theatres of military operations across the world, from Northern Ireland to Bosnia to Iraq and now Liberia.
Kevin, San Francisco, California (former British Soldier)
| Intervention is a politician's game |
Peacekeeping is just another form of the meddling that is associated with globalization. It is essentially an Orwellian development, an intervention in natural processes, even if the processes are dismaying to observe. However - the alternative is eventual one-world government, which to me is a frightening prospect. I can see where the compulsion to intervene comes from, but as soon as one makes one concession, it precipitates an ever-growing trend towards intervention. Wars against aggressors on your own territory remain by and large the only ironclad "just wars". The alternative to intervening physically is powerful moral persuasion (Remember consumer-initiated boycotts of South Africa and Israel). Another way of coping is to learn to suppress the "someone should do something" impulse within oneself and replace it with a "tend to your own business" reflex. Intervention is a politician's game, it helps boost state budgets and provides an excuse for increasing taxes, and if all goes well, brings them personal Nobel Prizes.
Juri, Estonia
The UN is not an institution that can demand peace. It should be used as a place where two warring nations can come together to talk peace. The UN security council is only as strong as its weakest permanent member state. When there is trouble in a particular country, nations in the surrounding area should be the first to help since it is in their National interest, as all nations should be doing anyway.
Patrick, USA
Personally I think that the criticism of American Administration in this case is missing the point. President Bush has made it very clear that he wanted all nations involved in the reconstruction and bringing peace to Iraq, recognizing that not only one nation but all of them have to be involved in peacekeeping efforts. It is definitely not a piece of cake, however, to convince the world about necessity of such co-operation. Over the last few months we all have been witnesses of the sad reality – it is every nation’s private business and political prejudice that decides whether to be involved or not (usually not). Undoubtedly, Iraq war has divided the world but it is certain countries’ unwillingness to co-operate in peacekeeping that threatens, undermines and makes it impossible for the UN and NATO to work, not Bush Administration’s alleged defiance of those organizations.
Agnieszka Idzik, Jaslo, Poland
The UN must defend people from oppression, genocide, famine and other undignified torments but permanent members and veto rights in the Security Council makes it an instrument for the exclusive interests of a few countries. On the other hand a country with a couple of million people and a contributor of a tiny percentage of the UN costs cannot have the same voting power as larger countries. Voting and contribution could be proportional to the percentage of Global population and the Security Council constituted of rotating members. This or something alike is a dream that will not come true for as long as the UN and other organizations are regarded as instruments by a few powerful countries.
Artur Freitas, Johannesburg, South Africa As long as there are national armies, there will be military conflicts, and peacekeeping will always have imbalances built in. An organisation like Nato is already a bit better than national armies, but far from ideal as it's too western. Do with national armies what is happening with the economy: globalise all of them under U.N. command, and wars will largely be avoided, unilateral decisions disappear, and a country or organisation not complying with U.N. rule of whatever nature knows it has the whole world community to count with. Great public money saver too, but deadly for the weapons industry. Dreaming? Yes, but it's a nice one.
Jan De Vriese, Gijzegem, Belgium
When the USA stop making a mess here and there in the world in the name of freedom and when they show some respect to the UN, we can talk about international collaboration for peace in the World. Look what they've done to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq (just to name the latest!). Their lives haven't been better while ordinary Americans are watching the action in the comfort of their homes.
Eddy, Canada
The continuous barrage of anti-American sentiment spewed on these pages leads me to conclude there is only one reasonable thing for the U.S. to do, provide for America first and forget the rest of the world. First, we stop all trade with the rest of the world. Second, all non-citizens should be evicted immediately. Third, all foreigners should be banned from even stepping foot on US soil. Fourth, the US should modernize and expand its nuclear arsenal, including a comprehensive space based missile shield and make clear to the rest of the world that any tampering in US affairs or attempts to undermine the US will lead to a swift and final destruction. Without the hard working Americans who buy many of the world's goods, the rest of the world will rot. Without American guidance, the world will quickly decay into a poverty stricken anarchistic state. You shall reap what you sow my jealous and ignorant friends.
John K, Burlington VT, USA
To John K. US:
As a duly appointed representative of "the rest of the world", I would like to say: please please please please please do everything that you said you'd do. I think we'd all get a kick out of watching the mighty american empire become a third world country in a matter of years, if not months.
Damian, US/Australia
How does John K. suppose America is going to prosper when his policies have banned exports to other countries, stopped tourists from spending their holiday money in the US, stopped brilliant "foreigners" from setting up new enterprises in the US and evicted all the non-citizens who previously contributed to the economy? Where is the money going to come from to modernise and expand the nuclear arsenal? America is as dependent on the rest of the world as any other country - probably more so than most. And just remember it was "foreigners" who created the US in the first place.
Laura, UK
| It was Saddam who made the UN look so weak and ineffective |
It amazes me that many people are quick to point out that the US and UK "ignored" the UN, but no one remembers that Saddam Hussein "ignored" 17 UN resolutions. It was Saddam who made the UN look so weak and ineffective. The message received by other ruthless dictators is that the international community was unwilling to enforce UN mandates. Consequently, the UN will not be taken seriously in future resolutions or peacekeeping missions.
Tammy, Boston Peace keeping? I'm sorry but I think we're a little too late aren't we? The war on Iraq, and this whole War on terrorism has destabilized most of the world now. North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia, Chechnya, and Africa, its all out of control now.
Usman, USA
Prior to Iraq, I would have said the U.N was the only legitimate authority who could conduct peacekeeping. It has no vested interests and represents world opinion, as expressed through its members. However Bush and Blair have trashed the U.N and believe they can police the world themselves - along with rag tag collection of second rate armies.
John Li, Australia
The peacekeeping missions by the UN should be given to any country in need of law and order - from breach of humans rights, chaos, anarchy, or whatever circumstances make it necessary. The UN has to take part in Iraq as it is doing in Liberia, Afghanistan, Kosovo, EastTimor and the Congo. They should join the effort, with the world community to establish a Global Peace where all United Nations can guarantee a free peaceful world and not only a superpower.
Jose Nigrin, Guatemala, City. Guatemala
| The UN simply lacks the will to use force when necessary |
The future of peacekeeping is not with the UN. It is with coalitions who have the will to do the job. The UN simply lacks the will to use force when necessary. There is no "get the job done" attitude at the UN. If you want effective peacekeeping/peacemaking, you most definitely need to get the job done. No more Srebernicas.
Michael, Chicago, United States Given that peacekeeping missions are often held hostage to the political interests of the countries that are supplying troops to the mission. Would it not be better if a permanent force under UN control was established to conduct peacekeeping operations? It could be funded by a tax on military spending.
Callum Roxburgh, Greenock Scotland
The two critical elements of peace keeping are the ability and willingness to use deadly force. The UN obviously lacks both--as displayed in Kosovo and Rwanda - and thus is only effective at peace keeping after hostile forces have been subdued. And that is where the US comes in. Oh, everybody screams and cries and hates it, but truth be told, nobody else can or will get the job done.
Shane, USA
Every one mind their own business and their will be peace and progress. Developed countries should not throw their weight around because at times it can Boomerang!!!!
Chophel, Kathmandu - Nepal
UN peacekeeping will not have a future unless it can stand up to the USA. The whole credibility of international peacekeeping rests on international justice. Instead of international justice we have one law for the West and one for everyone else. Without a resolution to this fundamental problem all we have to look forward to is more US neo-colonialism.
Simon Richardson, London, UK We have only one UN, everyone knows that it has to be reformed and readjusted to the new world situation, but it belongs to the future. At the moment it is absolutely necessary to use what is available, the present Department of Peace Keeping, that after all is not so bad. Working as civilian staff in some UN peacekeeping missions has given me the chance to meet a lot of UN international and local staff doing their job in an impeccable way and bringing all their personal resources to difficult local contexts.
Pier Luigi Rizzini, Milan, Italy
I am very proud of my country's peacekeeping (and peacemaking) tradition. But the era when Scandinavia and Canada could send troops to every UN mission has come to an end. Samuel Huntington identified two civilisations without stabilising "core states": Islam and Africa. There you'll find most of the places that need peacekeepers, and so those civilisations should stabilise themselves by clubbing together and providing their own. They will have to learn the path of peace by walking it themselves.
Paul Connor, Toronto, Canada
The future of international peacekeeping operations is bright as long as the peacekeepers are not behaving like the American forces who are more or less behaving like a conqueror rather than peacekeeper.
Kamarudin, Malaysia
| What power does the UN hold? |
In a world where the US and UK Governments can ignore both the UN and the voice of the public, what power does the UN hold? Will all future peacekeeping missions be on an "invade first look for evidence later" policy, and if so, who is the real threat to world peace?
Nik, UK We have to appreciate that when we talk of the UN we talk of nations - some playing a bigger role, others a significantly smaller contribution. However, it not commendable that those who deem themselves part of the UN should take it on themselves to restore peace without the sanction of the other members of the organisation. Nato members especially must understand that it's not up to them to move in war torn countries even when the UN seems not effective. In any case, since they already are the strong hands behind the UN, why don't they focus their resources into the UN?
Chisomo Kapulula, Zomba, Malawi.
International peacekeeping must be under the UN control and any mission must be supported by the majority in the General Assembly and subsequently by the Security Council, whose members should also be elected by the members of the General Assembly. No military deployment must be entrusted to any military block like the Nato. No single nations should have the veto power! If this can be achieved, so will be peace in the world!
Srinivsan Toft, Humleb�k, Denmark
| UN alone can no longer deal with the complex, emerging dynamics of global conflicts |
The UN needs help from regional or national forces and organizations by way of logistic, military, technical and humanitarian support to enhance the credibility and effectiveness of global, peacekeeping operations. UN alone can no longer deal with the complex, emerging dynamics of global conflicts. These measures should be considered or implemented as a part of the reforms needed in the UN for the 21st century and beyond. Bottom line: Nations who don't send troops can assist with funds and equipment in urgent peacekeeping operations coordinated by the UN and regional bodies.
Igonikon Jack, USA Peacekeeping operations under UN mandates does work a little, and certainly better than operations without UN mandates (Afghanistan and Iraq). However, the latest operations in Ivory Coast and DR of Congo have shown that a "fighting back" mechanism is truly needed. UN troops, when observing a breach in a peaceful situation, should use force immediately.
Olivier, Brussels, Belgium
"Peacekeeping" mission is a phenomenon we relatively recently encountered. However pure peacekeeping missions are hard to be seen. In many cases either it was very late - many people already died - thus had no much importance or it appeared as turned into an instrument to disguise some countries especially US ambitions. At first, this outlook has to be mended and then to make it more effective, sufficient resources have to be provided. Peacekeeping missions should be contemplated in full respect to human rights excluding all political and other calculations. Unless these are achieved, people will lose their confidence and belief in these missions.
Baris Elmaci, Turkey
Overall, UN peacekeeping missions have made a big difference in many parts of the world, provided they were given a clear mandate, recognized by all. The difficulties encountered by the US in Iraq show how much it matters to have the legitimacy of endorsement by the international community: without it, the coalition is widely perceived to be an invading force conquering the country for its own purposes. There is little doubt that the arrival of a UN mission in Iraq would help in changing that perception.
Simon, Amsterdam, Netherlands A peacekeeping force, in order to have a chance of success, should be a force that everyone trusts or at least has no reason to distrust. Such a force could only be international and under the UN control. As seen in events in Mogadishu and Iraq when one country bypasses the UN and goes in to solo crusade it is difficult to gain the trust of the ones involved in the conflict and prove that you have unselfish motives.
Maria Ioannou, Athens, Greece
In its current form, peacekeeping is at it's best, the scaring of either side from pressing the trigger, a role best fulfilled by America (and/or Nato), who unfortunately step in with credible force only when their immediate interest is at stake. The future of peacekeeping is in the creation of regional mini-superpowers with a well-defined mandate to spearhead the policing of their immediate backyard. The selected state should first pass the test of stability, responsible use of military power and sustainable democracy. That way, external intervention will suffer less from cultural shocks and imperialism paranoia. And, of course, less body bags for Uncle Sam.
Maurice Achach, Nairobi, Kenya
We need peacemakers before we need peacekeepers. Reform must start with the UN. A complete overhaul of the Security Council, changes in membership to reflect the current world powers and elimination of the veto would be a start.
Scott Masteller, Fleetwood, PA
There is at present only one such organization: Nato. However Nato should not act beyond its traditional theatre of operations which is Europe. Regional conflicts such ones which resulted in massacres in the Balkans and Africa should be dealt with by regional forces commanded by armies of the strongest states. Western hemisphere is obviously a US's backyard (Monroe Doctrine), European continent should be stabilized by EU force when there finally is one, another force led by China could keep peace in the East Asia. As to UN - forget it!
Mirek Kondracki, Alexandria, VA, USA
| In longer term, what we need is not peacekeeping but peacemaking |
In longer term, what we need is not peacekeeping but peacemaking. Peacekeeping effort should be done in conjunction with peacemaking effort. However, in reality, there are lots of politicians and war lords who are fighting for their self interests. For them, building a country is not their first priority. What should we, international community do in these situations? In its history, even the UN has not found an answer yet.
F Nakamura, Japan I see no future for any international peace keeping forces and for the UN either, while there is the superpower ignoring the opinion of the UN and considering the UN just its assistant to protect its interests. I don't think the peace keepers can be neutral in a conflict, so they will always be an instrument of somebody's policy.
Mikhail, Russia
I don't see a future for the UN peacekeeper. Think about it. You are asking troops to answer to foreign commanders while wearing big targets on their backs. When something does happen there are so many levels of command and approval that by the time the peacekeepers are authorized to protect themselves and others with deadly force it is too late.
They are a paper tiger at best, moving training aids for the combatants for the most part, and a big disappointment to those they are supposed to protect often. This is why countries are asking for US intervention. It is more focused and actually has teeth.
Tim W, Phoenix
I think we need to reform the peacekeeping Organization, unless an existing scorn for the UN will end the world into 'groups'.
Peter Madata (Magugu), Tanzania
If the UN wants to be an effective peacekeeping force in the future they need to set out a clear mandate before they go in, and they need to do more to stop bloodshed once they arrive there. I hate to see people being killed and UN peacekeepers just stand there and not do anything. Nato makes for a better peacekeeping force because they are not exactly a peacekeeping force, they are a fighting force, and wont hesitate to pound the opposition into submission if they refuse or fail to own up to a peace plan. The UN needs to take up such a role if they are to be an effective peacekeeping force.
Peter, NYC, USA
| Peacekeeping should be led by regional forces where possible because of cultural differences, topography and the like |
Peacekeeping should be led by regional forces where possible because of cultural differences, topography and the like. Additionally, the traditional rules of non-engagement for Peacekeepers have failed us time and again- Bosnia, Rwanda, DRC etc. These should be changed to allow them to engage parties that are killing and maiming others. This is our reality and the UN needs to wake up to it.
Margaret Nganga, Kenya The idea of an international peace keeping organization is all well and good. Unfortunately the world needs to realize that this type of organization will not get very far without a powerful military force backing them up.
SP, South Dakota USA
Is there still an outstanding peacekeeping organisation in the world? I thought America has made it her own discretion! For instance in Liberia, people, very well respected, were calling on Bush to send the US troops in the country instead of UN! Anyway, after all UN has lost its truck so why not "the police of the world take over" though it's dangerous.
Josephat M. Mwanzi, Mwanza City, Tanzania
To Josephat, Tanzania: the "police of the world" concept is one of the most dangerous I have ever heard. In order to have a police force anywhere you need to have a set of rules and regulation that police force has follow and some higher authority to make sure that they do. Since the US has refused to give such laws and regulations and has impunity to ICC they are totally unfit for that role. How would you feel if the police in your country could conduct as they pleased without having to answer to anyone?
Evripidis Diogenous, Athens, Greece
I predict a total breakdown of the UN and NATO (to some extent). Many countries will work together on specific areas, but chances are We will not see a real International Force for a very long time, especially since the Leaders (US) feel unappreciated.
Ray, Boston MA USA
Srebrenica and Rwanda should be in the back of everyone's mind when considering peacekeepers. A military force has to be a capable fighting mechanism with the capacity to inflict overwhelming damage against its opponents.
Kevin Baca, California, USA
Any country or international organization that has the goals for peace and for the wellbeing of millions of people who suffer should be given support by funding and donations. The UN and Nato have sent peacekeepers around the world but we need a TRUELY international organization built for this kind of thing. One that can lead and stabilise countries that are troubled around the globe.
Ali, Kuwait
One-Minute World News 
News services
E-mail this to a friend 
Printable version 
Watch the programme 