Alice in Lebanon

     The more we are confronted with the security problems of the post cold war world, the more we have to question the international system’s capacity to cope. We struggled with the mass starvation and collapse of order in Somalia. To our shame we saw 400,000 die in Rwanda. We saw atrocities and genocide in Bosnia. And now in Darfur, with several hundred thousand more dead, we seem incapable of dealing with the government of Sudan and its allied irregular forces. Are we becoming so immune to hands and legs being hacked off, women raped, and children violated and murdered?

     The United Nations is the favorite target of Americans, particularly the politicians of both our parties in Congress, as being responsible for the international community’s most devastating failures. Since I participated at the UN in some of those failures – Lebanon, Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti – I tend to have a different perspective. We are quick to blame the United Nations because it is an easy target. It has no constituency to speak of in this country. And its operations and capabilities are a mystery for most of us. But the reality is that we ask too much of the UN at the same time that we deny it the resources it would need to actually do something about these human tragedies. And it is we, along with the other permanent members of the Security Council who set the conditions for failure.

     Take Lebanon, for example. The Security Council, where we have a veto, established a United Nations “peacekeeping” force, UNIFIL, to report on violations of the ceasefires we have negotiated over the years involving, at times the PLO, at times Hezbollah, Syria, and certainly Israel. The mission has always operated under the rules of engagement that state that UNIFIL units cannot fire unless fired on. At every point in its history, UNIFIL has been out gunned and out manned, obviously by Israel, but also for many years by Syria, by the PLO until 1982, and now by Hezbollah.

     In this case, as in many others, the concept “peacekeeping” is a misnomer. The UN forces are not “keeping” any peace. At most, they are capable of observing the behavior of the parties in Southern Lebanon, their area of operations, and reporting violations of a ceasefire that really does not exist and is seldom observed. Because the UN forces are stationed in positions that are vulnerable to any armed faction or, for that matter, to Israeli attack, there is a natural attitude of self-preservation. The peacekeepers have to ask themselves, do they really want to single out Hezbollah as a violator when well armed Hezbollah fighters are perched over their UNIFIL camp? The Israelis are somewhat justified in thinking that the UNIFIL operation is hostage to Israel’s enemies.

     Very obviously, UNIFIL did not stop the Hezbollah attacks on Israel and nor was it supposed to. So in the summer of 2006, Lebanon erupted again in a contest between Israel and Hezbollah. Sensibly, UNIFIL ducked. And when the Israeli forces withdrew from Southern Lebanon – again – the Security Council in its wisdom reconfigured the UNIFIL mandate and increased its size. Now it was supposed to monitor the ceasefire; to support the Lebanese Army in deploying to the south as Israel withdrew; to help the Lebanese Armed Forces create a weapons free zone south of the Litani river on the border with Israel, and help the Government of Lebanon guard its borders against infiltration of arms (to Hezbollah) by sea, by air and across the Syrian border. To do this, the Security Council authorized a force of 15,000 “peacekeepers.”

     But the council was not prepared to give this force the authority to enforce its mandate by arms since it was still under Chapter VI of the Charter and thereby restricted from using its weapons except in self defense. And in any event, 15,000 lightly armed UN troops could not hope to stand up to Hezbollah in a military confrontation.

     Poor UNIFIL - expected to do with a mixed bag of 15,000 toothless peacekeepers, what Israel could not do with its entire air force and 30,000 well trained ground forces armed with heavy weapons, ranging from tanks and heavy artillery to cluster bombs, mines and other assorted killing machines. Who wants to take bets that UNIFIL will be able to fulfill its mandate? And who wants to bet that the United States and other permanent members of the Security Council, who set up this operation, will escape free of blame when UNIFIL does not live up to the impossible demands those same permanent members placed on it. No, it will be the UN, that amorphous, “incompetent” organization that the Honorable Members of the House and Senate and much of the American public will blame. Some day we may recognize that the problem with peacekeeping may not be in the UN so much as it may be with us.

Technorati Tags:

Darfur, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Peacekeeping, Rwanda, United Nations, UN Security Council

Comments

[Daniel Laub]

I find it undeniable that after over four years of fighting in Iraq, myself along with much of the American public have become numb to the number of casualties that continue to rise each day. Virtually every day the New York Times reports that an ambush of some kind has killed a number of soldiers, and each day I simply turn the page. Not because I do not care, or because I do not appreciate everything each soldier has done in Iraq, but because the war has gone on for too long without any significant progress, and the American media corporations have monopolized on its failures. With each casualty, the current Administration gets more and more pressure on its shoulders to end to violence and to finally implant a functioning democracy.

The constant reports of casualties in Iraq are a primary reason why the U.S. is so eager to place the blame on organizations like the UNIFIL. The U.S. is already guilty of keeping our troops in Iraq for this long, and for withstanding so many casualties. In an effort to dodge further blame and/or pressures from the international community, the U.S. along with many other nations have targeted the failures of the U.N. in an effort to cushion the blame we have suffered and deter the attention away from us. For instance, the U.S. simply blamed the UNIFIL in its failed efforts during the Hezbollah-Israeli conflict because we simply could not take any more blame on our shoulders. However, as you state in your article, we expected the UNIFIL to achieve and maintain peace with an extremely small number of “toothless peacekeepers.” Instead of blaming the UNIFIL for failing to accomplish what the well trained Israeli army could not, we should be criticizing ourselves for not supporting the UNIFIL with all the necessary resources they require to be able to accomplish what we expect them to accomplish.

Unfortunately, I fear that we will not stop blaming others for our deficiency in support until we begin to taste victory in places such as Iraq. I believe that we need to boost our moral and self-confidence in such areas where we are struggling and losing countless lives before we can begin to properly support and assist the UNIFIL. It is difficult for such a proud country like the U.S. not to criticize another’s failure when we too are failing in our War on Terror in Iraq.

[Niels Lesniewski]

I agree with Ambassador Walker’s logic that the UN peacekeeping forces under Chapter VI resolutions in places like Lebanon fail at least in part due to insufficient support from the permanent members of the Security Council and the U.S. in particular. That brings forth a difficult question for me. Would the UN be better off if the US vetoed any and all resolutions under either Chapter VI or VII for which the American government was not prepared to spend a significant amount of “blood and treasure?” In other words, why do we allow passage of Security Council resolutions that we are not prepared to back with all the resources of the greatest military in the world.

I certainly understand that if the lightly armed UNIFIL forces on the Lebanese border included a high percentage of American troops, they might come under increased attack. Nonetheless, if the US vetoed any resolution for which no major military power would lead the effort, then we might see fewer UN intervention missions and the world might still be seen as ignoring humanitarian crises. However, that perception already exists despite the alphabet soup of existing peacekeeping operations. More competent and less disheveled peacekeeping forces than those currently employed by the UN might have fewer embarrassing failures and therefore gain some level of prestige for the UN over the long term. Unless we work to restore confidence in the UN, future resolutions could become, as Macbeth would say, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

[Sarah Cornblath]

After reading this article and considering the failure of many UN peacekeeping missions in the last 20 years, I find myself wondering, why do we continually put so much faith in these operations when many of them seem doomed to failure from the beginning? By employing a “peacekeeping” mission, the UN is implying that there is some peace to keep. However, how can UNIFIL, or any other mission for that matter, be deemed a peacekeeping mission when as recently as this summer, southern Lebanon was ripped apart by attacks from both Hezbollah and the Israelis? We constantly blame the UN for the Rwandan genocide or for the disasters in Bosnia and Kosovo without really understanding what the UN forces were deployed to do. It is so easy for Americans to blame international coalitions because we see our military as this unbeatable force that stomps around the world promoting “American” ideals of democracy and freedom. We often forget that UN peacekeeping troops are different from an army, and therefore feel frustrated and angry when they fail to stop suicide bombers or guerilla armies. Yet that is not their purpose. Peacekeeping troops are meant to do just as the name says, keep peace. That implies that from the beginning there is a peace to keep. It is impractical to blame UN peacekeepers for genocide and murder when they do not have the power, authority, or capability to carry out such tasks. Instead of blaming the UN for its failure, we should acknowledge all that it has done and perhaps pressure our government to lend more support to international peacekeeping forces, and furthermore, maybe just maybe, we should allow these forces to do what we expect of them, that is promote peace and international cooperation through force.

[Beth Kelly]

I agree with Ambassador Walker that the United Nations has insufficient troops to accomplish everything civilians wish it could and that the “commitment gap” is a real problem. In this time, with wars fought far from American soil, it’s hard for anyone, but especially young American civilians, to fully comprehend the great costs of supporting successful military-type missions. Of course, we’ve heard our grandparents’ stories about World War II, and perhaps our parents’ stories about Vietnam, and even our peers’ stories about Afghanistan and Iraq but those are just stories for those far removed from the violence. Death in combat seems like a line from a history book or CNN that isn’t happening today and certainly not to us.
Civilians should realize the enormous sacrifices it takes to support any armed forces, in terms of time, money, and human life. Even when the Security Council allocates troops for a mission that many countries support on paper, those countries are not willing to sacrifice their own citizens for the cause. Or, in the case of Lebanon, the number of troops is there, but they are woefully under-trained. Because the American government doesn’t like our troops serving under a foreign commander, Americans are disproportionately underrepresented in UN forces, which means that the US believes in something but not badly enough to sacrifice for it.
There is a lot of conflict in the world right now and while the UN should try to help as much as it can, it can only help as much as we let it ("we" being citizens of anywhere). Give the UN the support it needs to get everything done, and the UN will fulfill its ever-expanding role.

[Elizabeth Debraggio]

Among the many lessons learned from various UN peacekeeping missions, including UNIFIL in Lebanon, is that there is a crucial distinction between intention and action. In large part, this distinction is the result of conflicting loyalties. Increased global cooperation and interdependence have drawn countries together, but most nation-states still follow a realistic approach to international politics, acting primarily in national self-interest. A blurry line between national loyalty and international duty thereby presents diplomats and civil servants with the job of initiating missions that demonstrate our commendable intention but do not require large sacrifices on our part upon implementation. As a result, missions routinely lack sufficient funds, manpower, coordination, and involvement. Given such failings, it is no wonder peacekeeping missions often fall short of their lofty and ambitious expectations.

What is additionally unfortunate is that the blame for such shortcomings is traditionally borne by the UN. We fail to realize that, like any organization, the international system is only as strong as its individual parts and ultimately, accountability for the successes and failures of this system rest with us as individuals. Condemning violence or supporting intervention while failing to provide the means necessary to sufficiently follow through may assuage guilty consciences, but simultaneously hinders the creation of an effective international body. Liberal governments respond to the demands of public opinion: when we demand immediate solutions without recognizing that ongoing conflict cannot be solved by simply issuing a Security Council mandate, we bear the ultimate responsibility of the failure of the system. The international community’s “capacity to cope” in the face of systemic violence, starvation and genocide is determined by our ability to close the gap between words and action—we cannot simply expect the UN to succeed; we must actively commit ourselves to the furtherance of the institution and provide it with the materials necessary to fulfill its intended purpose.

[Bianca Dragan]

Deng Xiaoping once said referring to China’s economy: “Black cat, white cat, all that matters is that it catches mice.” It’s high time for the cat to make some changes, otherwise it’s going to die before it catches the mice.
To begin with, I don’t think we’re becoming “immune to hands and legs being hacked off, women raped, and children violated and murdered.” On the contrary, humanitarian interventions have strong public support. After all, we’re living in a holistic society where what a man does influence the life of other man, not only his life. We need the other people, we empathized with other people’s sufferings. Like Ambassador Walker once said during the class, there is one political factor that gives the UN incentives against conducting humanitarian interventions, i.e. lack of victories. Somalia influenced the UN’s decision on Rwanda, and both influenced the UN’s decision on Darfur. The mass starvation and the collapse of the whole security in Somalia showed at least one weakness of the UN. It didn’t have a clear mission. It started as an operation focused on humanitarian relief and ended up focusing on nation building. Instead of being a rhetoric organization (“Should we intervene?” “Should we send more troops?” “Shouldn’t we call the troops home?”), the UN absolutely needs to have clear priorities and stick to them. Another problem that the UN is confronted with is selfsabotage. First, the member countries don’t really give up their power of decision. Sure, the UN is about politics, but the UN needs to be about commitment, patience, partnership, and talent to cooperate in order to be successful. The UN now tends to be an increasingly diverse and individualistic organization. With so many member countries wanting to protect their own interests when making a decision, UN is a unleveled playing field. Although it has a sensible set of rules to coordinate the game, the UN is underperforming mainly because it doesn’t have a coherent army. The UN troops led by one commander are from various countries. The troops are not trained together, they need joint exercises to better act as a monolith. Good intentions are rarely enough. The African Union depicts it best. AU definitely showed the will to do something, but it’s underfunded and poorly trained. Consequently, its impact is not powerful. Also, it is known that political leaders without victories risk the loss of public support and removal from office. So, on one hand, the UN is criticized for not intervening where massive killings and violence occurs (Darfur). On the other hand, the UN is criticized when it does intervene but can’t restore peace in the area. The success of an operation mainly depends on costs and benefits. When a humanitarian intervention proves useless in saving lives, but also increases the number of the casualties with its inefficiency, it’s only natural for people to harshly criticize the mission. In Lebanon, UNIFIL was not capable of keeping the peace, it observed the violence and barely self-preserved. Therefore, the UN was considered an “amorphous, incompetent organization.” Of course people are “quick to blame the UN” and sure, the UN is “an easy target,” because the expectations for an international organization like the UN to cope with security problems are also high. Finally, we’ll just have to wait and see when will the UN make the Great Leap Forward. It better be soon that the UN starts meowing while catching mice safely and efficiently. Otherwise, it’s gonna die.

[Scott Iseman]

Ambassador Walker makes a great point in that UN missions are doomed to failure because we do not provide the adequate resources and provisions to accomplish the missions. Certainly, we Americans can take some of the blame for these failures and we should certainly acknowledge the influential role we play in the UN and around the world. I think a lot of the blame for UN failures can be placed on the shoulders of collective security and global cooperative action. UN security efforts are most effective when they mandate and rubber stamp the desire of a motivated coalition rather than form a piecemeal global force. Blame is certainly due to the US but we cannot ignore global disinterest and apathy. We are not yet enough of a global community for the benefits of collective action to be realized.

[John Molfetas]

The idea of peacekeeping and military intervention is positively correlated with American interests. When American interests are directly or indirectly threatened, the US considers the use of military force, either via the UN or if the UN Security Council does not give it the mandate outside of it. Examples of this are the Korean War, or coalition reaction to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. In both cases the US acted on the basis of self interest, but also held the morally high position; in both cases intervention was necessary for the preservation of the world order.
The Middle East and particularly Lebanon is a far more complex issue. Not only because of the intricate ethnological structure the country and the animosity that exists between the different religious sects; rather, because the Middle East, is particularly hostile to the US because they perceive it, as supporting Israel over the Arab nations. If the US acts in force, within the region, it would be immediately accused of imperialism; if it does not act it will be accused of not caring about important global issues. Anything America does will create some amount of animosity within the region. Even the peaceful rapprochement that Carter began in 1976, paved the way, for a peace process between Israel and Egypt, enraged Islamic and Jewish extremists, and eventually led to the assassination of Anwar Saddat. Therefore, it would be more responsible for the US not to take direct action in the region, but to strengthen the ability of the UN, to engage independently in peacekeeping efforts. This will enhance the credibility of the United States amongst the Arab nations.
So as for the UN to be able to keep the peace and not just monitor the fighting between two groups, as it usually does; it should have the ability to fire on the co-belligerents (not only in self-defense but in preventive strikes). The authorization of airpower with UN contingents will increase the like hood of a success, as airpower is the basis modern warfare. Furthermore, the UN must ensure that its forces within a large geographic region are compatible with each other. The compatibility, thus of similar equipment, magnifies the logistical nightmare, renders the troops less effective in battle and makes cooperation between UN foreign forces from different countries impossible. If the UN forces have compatible weapons, the size of the logistical troops will decrease, thus directing more troops to the combat zone.
Mobility is also of extreme importance in peacekeeping missions. Saving time may equal saving civilians. Mobility can be enhanced by keeping large transports, ready for immediate deployment, in key geographical positions, under the direct of the UN and not the home countries.
The problem with all the above structural changes is that the come into conflict with the idea of sovereignty. Most countries do not want to deploy a sizeable size of their forces, for a peacekeeping mission, pay the bill for the operation and not be able to directly command their troops. Neither is any country going to give a destroyer or a nuclear submarine to the UN so that it acts a deterrent at times of conflict. Our age reminds me heavily of the 1920s and 1930s, when accordingly few nations could be bothered to use their own forces or to construct an international force that would prevent or deter armed aggression. As Chamberlain put it, “most British were not willing to have their boys killed for some country they knew little about”. This idea remains strong today, despite two world wars and the devastation that they caused.

[Allison Gaston-Enholm]

When it comes to the United Nations, Americans are torn. On the one hand, the United States’ founders adopted principles of universal democracy and universal freedom. Everyone wants to solve the problems of world hunger and genocide – who wouldn’t? However, when achieving those goals coincides with extensive monetary support, the risk of failure, or even limiting the sovereignty of our nation, we are reluctant.
The American government’s opinion of the United Nations and our relationship with it is currently ambivalent. We want the United Nations’ support when it serves our purposes, but we allow the blame to fall on the organization when an attempt to solve a global problem falls short or goes awry.
We need to understand that these international problems of hunger, disease, poverty, and war are complex and difficult to solve. Often the problems have no clear-cut solution. Perhaps we need to be more patient and supportive as the United Nations attempts to solve problems that our nation cannot fix alone. Yes, we cannot expect perfection, but the alternative is inaction. Letting these dire problems fester and persist is perhaps even more disastrous than the failures of these good-faith attempts.

[Alex Caruso]

When blaming the UN for the devastating failures that have plagued the international community, it is easy to forget the difficulty of their tasks. The UN has an ever expanding workload; in the last 10 years the workload has quadrupled and it continues to grow. The amount of resources the UN has to combat this, however, is not expanding at the same rate. The new responsibilities of the UN peacekeeping missions are becoming much more difficult and complex. When you look at examples such as Somalia, these “peacekeeping missions” are difficult for any military force, not to mention for an understaffed multi-national force. The additional workload and the change in the nature of the work have helped compromise the UN’s performance in peacekeeping.
Ban Ki-moon, the new United Nations secretary general, has made plans to restructure peacekeeping in the UN into two separate departments as well as reshape the disarmament department. These changes could be very helpful, but it is difficult to pass changes through the 192 member General Assembly. As difficult as it may be to make a change, it is necessary to escape the cycle of problems that trouble the UN.

[Brittany Horn]

The US always blames the UN for any international failures. Yet, as members of the security council the US does not send troops to support UN missions they just provide the lift. So, ideally the US is partially to blame in some of these cases. Moreover, in Lebanon UNIFIL does not stand a chance. Israel is considered to have one of the strongest military forces in the world and they could not claim victory in Lebanon. Now the security council knowing this is allowing for an under armed, under staffed, and under trained group to enter the area. Have they done their homework??
I also find it funny that the US will now blame the UN for not being prepared to properly handle the situation in Lebanon. Yet, in Iraq our soliders who are not trained to deal with insurgents or language barriers are prepared?
The UN peacekeeping forces cannot work if the US does not fully support them. Moreover, it is pertinent that the US and other countries take a more indepth look at every situation and study the intricate details. Simply sending unilateral troops or international peacekeepers is worthless if you can't understand the root of the problem. Understanding these problems are the first step in fixing them, that is a lesson all countries and organizations need to learn.

[Sara Feuerstein]

The UN is an easy punching bag, and its critics make several valid points: the UN has a proven record of ineffectiveness in international peacekeeping operations. This blog post astutely points out some of its major predicaments. It’s true, we ask too much of the UN and provide too little. We expect instant peace; however, hodgepodge forces with varying equipment quality, training, and languages, coupled with generally insufficient troop numbers to secure peace often fall short of this demanding goal. Furthermore, bureaucratic idiosyncrasies such as debating whether to wear blue helmets or green arm bands frequently hold up action. Donor fatigue, weakly-armed chapter VI resolutions, and the exploding number of resolutions and missions further strain the capacities of the international organization.

It is unfair, however to claim that the UN is responsible for the world’s failures. Why not blame the countries that can’t keep their own peace or their neighboring countries who could serve as mediators? If everyone could “just get along”, there would be no need for the UN. Instead of congress wasting time badmouthing the UN and holding contributions in arrears (which only serve to provoke anger in the international community), congress should pursue two courses: either try to make the UN more effective, or put more resources into effective regional institutions. The UN may gain more effectiveness and legitimacy if the United States put stock in it. If the US respected the institution (instead of ignoring its wishes to postpone Iraqi invasion or instead of appointing a UN critic as ambassador), or if the United States identified its vital interests and stopped using its veto willy nilly on marginal items, or if the US put forth a less aggressive agenda, or if the US let other countries take the lead through compromise, other countries would follow suit in respecting the UN framework. The United States’ other option for fostering effective peacekeeping would be to identify, support, or help to construct more regional peacekeeping and defense groups such as NATO or the AU; with powerful regional groups, the UN would have less on its plate.

At any given time, the world faces a multitude of military and humanitarian crises. The United Nations is currently one of the only organizations willing or capable to act, and congress should support it and allow it a free hand to function effectively.

[Meghan Hepp]

I must agree with Amb Walker’s point that we ask too much of the United Nations while not supplying it the necessary resources to be successful. There are many clear examples of this through the numerous failed “peacekeeping” operations. And if the permanent members of the Security Council continue to jeopardize the safety of the UN troop by not supplying them with the arms, training, logistics, and back up necessary then perhaps the UN is not the best option for handling states in crisis. If the UN is continuously denied the necessary resources to be successful in its operations, then perhaps the UN should all together stop its peacekeeping mission.
The UN may have been successful at its original plans of enforcing cease-fires between two consenting nations; however, today we are seeing the UN get involved in states conflicts that are between internal factions. The nature of many conflicts is moving away from traditional state versus state, but rather to conflicts between internal clans, tribes, factions, and even terrorist organizations. And the UN clearly is not provided with the ability to take on these problems, which is leading to mission creep and mandates not being met. This new strain of UN peacekeeping is not being successful. I am not arguing for these crises to be ignored, rather, another rout to be taken for these atrocities to be handled. If the UN cannot be successful at these missions because of lack of funding from the major states, like the US, perhaps all funding should be cut from the UN and be redirected down a new alternative path that can more successfully solve states internal struggles.

[Tim Noyes]

Before we decide that it should have at its disposal a legitimate peacekeeping force, we should first examine whether the UN is actually serving its purpose as an enforcer of international law. Certainly it is unfair that the UN has been criticized for failed missions that offered little chance to succeed from the outset, but this issue brings to light an even greater problem regarding the “international” organization’s western bias. Consider the situation in Lebanon this summer, where Israel responded to the capturing of an Israeli soldier and Hezbollah rocket attacks(arguably inspired by Israeli aggression towards both Lebanon and Palestine) by bombing Beirut’s suburbs, major roads, power plant, and airport, effectively leveling the city to the ground. Though the UN has criticized Israel for overreacting, there have been no consequences for its deadly actions. Hezbollah, on the other hand, has been condemned worldwide, a point made clear by the fact that UNIFIL seems to be fighting against Hezbollah and in defense of Israel.
My point is that before we agree to fund a more substantial UN peacekeeping force, we should first question whether that force will be utilized objectively, as it should. The UN is an international organization meant to enforce international law, and its recent handling of the violence in Lebanon speaks to a clear western bias. That said, once the UN devotes itself to objectivity, and not to serving the interests of the United States, then it should certainly be equipped with the appropriate resources.

[Maura Donovan]

Peacekeeping missions with United Nations mandates may sound all-powerful and effective, but it is clear that lately they have become more duck-and-save-your -life action than actual effectiveness. The term peacekeeping holds a lot more meaning today than it did when the U.N. was first chartered. However, as these missions seem more important, they are being inherently restricted by their anachronistic nature. They were created for disputes between countries, not to handle modern day crises of genocide, guerilla warfare and terrorism. It’s not that we are becoming immune, but that we have become overwhelmed.

Peacekeeping missions must be allowed to be more active and less representative. Situations such as Lebanon are problems to be dealt with by both the United Nations as a whole and the permanent members of the Security Council. While it is true that the strong powers must step up to global warfare and supply the might for forces, if they were to take unilateral or even bilateral action, the mission would be viewed very differently in the world’s eyes. The United Nations was created to present a united front from which to take action. Hezbollah would react very differently to a United States force coming into Lebanon and exerting its power than it has to UNIFIL. The world would also critically discuss such action in terms of suspicious motives and encroaching sovereignty. The United Nations is important because of its essentially neutral position which gives it respect. It is a forum within which countries can present their side and hope to be seriously considered. What the U.N. needs more of is clout from its member nations, which can only be found through more interdependence and trust in the global system. The United Nations is in desperate need of reform, but it must still remain the biggest part of international cooperation and decisions.

[Tucker Hutchinson]

At home in California my parents do not have the U.S. flag, or even the beautiful California state flag, waving from their front porch; they have a light blue and white United Nations flag there instead. The flag was erected since I went away to college so it surprised me the first time I saw it. I loved the gesture but it seemed out of place on the front porch of a small town in California. Reading Ambassador Walker’s comments now I thought of this flag and my surprise at first seeing it. As Ambassador Walker points out in his comments, the U.N. has a bad reputation among millions of Americans. I think few households would think to fly the U.N. flag (I would not have). As an organization it seems so removed from the daily life of most Americans and not something worth pledging allegiance to. The U.N. could use a U.S. publicity campaign.

In the 2005 fiscal year the U.S. contributed 22% of the U.N.’s budget, $362.2 million. This sum is not a large amount relative to the enormous U.S. federal budget, but it represents much more than a monetary contribution. The U.S. is responsible for nearly a quarter of the U.N. budget (its biggest contributor) and should, along with its citizens, give the organization the attention such a leadership role requires. U.S. citizens, and in turn their representatives, make hypocrites out of themselves each time they criticize an under-funded U.N. mission. More than increased funding though, the U.N. needs Americans to realize the complexity of the missions they undertake and the good that can come when they succeed. The funding will follow.

America is the U.N.’s largest contributor because our GDP is the largest in the world. This wealth, and the geographic isolation of the U.S. (relative to areas like Europe or the Middle East), allow many Americans to lead lives totally disconnected from global events. Without interest or knowledge of events outside our borders it is hard to recognize the value of an international organization like the U.N. Despite its limited budget I would hope that the U.N. could devote more energy to promoting itself and the global reality of our world here in the U.S., where it is needed the most.

[Nathaniel Emmons]

The United Nations is unjustly blamed for the failure to stop human atrocities throughout the globe and has become the scapegoat for all the world powers. It is not that America or any other country has become desensitized to the horrific genocides like Rwanda, but that the US and the rest of the world see these problems as something the UN should deal with and fix. This attitude would be acceptable if the permanent members of the Security Council gave the UN the adequate means to address these situations. However, because no country wants to put their own troops in harms way for the international good, the UN is continually under-armed, poorly equipped and insufficiently funded. Thus, the UN becomes incapable of dealing with crises like Rwanda when world powers see it as in their best interest to not become involved, and yet are still able to blame the tragedy on the UN. The UN has grown too reliant on the permanent members of the Security Council and when these countries become reluctant to act, the UN fails. However, the problems with the UN do not only stem from the hesitancy of the Security Council, but also from overly aggressive mandates. Unfortunately, UN forces are often sent in under a Chapter VI resolution to act as peacekeepers where there is no peace to keep, where they are out armed and in the middle of an incredibly volatile situation. This situation is exactly what happened in Lebanon. As Ambassador Walker illustrated, how is a group of 15,000 poorly armed, internationally diverse soldiers supposed to accomplish a complex mission that even Israel was unable to do, all under the constraints of a Chapter VI resolution? The Security Council grants mandates that are far too aggressive for the forces that the Security Council approves, thus many peacekeeping missions are destined to fail even before they deploy. Although the UN has failed to act on some of the worst human atrocities in recent history, when the Security Council creates a simple mandate with an adequate force, the UN has illustrated that it can be very useful and can function well.

[Philip Holdredge]

The UN represents a contentious subject in American politics. Despite constant congressional debate over the UN and its ineffectiveness, the US rarely steps out and does something on its own to solve the problem. Essentially, the UN serves as a convenient lightning rod for politicians to point to as the source of the inertia in respect to solving various conflicts. However, the UN fails when the P-5 allows it to fail. Specifically, the US threatens to withhold funding when the UN does not act exactly how it wants the UN to act, in addition to threatening a veto on any action that may at least ameliorate the situation during a crisis.
In the case of Lebanon, there needs to be a more effective mandate for the peacekeepers. Specifically, the peacekeepers need to be given more leeway in their response to threats to security in Lebanon. In order to effectively prevent weapons transfers to Hezbollah and future assaults against the peacekeepers, they need a mandate that allows them to act more aggressively in creating a non-porous “weapons free zone.” Although they are poorly equipped and unlikely to receive an upgrade in funding anytime in the near future, an effective mandate could potentially improve the strategic posturing of the peacekeepers. More broadly, because of the changing international political landscape, peacekeepers need to be allowed to be peacemakers.

[Jessica Polidoro]

Before I took this class, my attitude towards the UN was strikingly similar to that of the majority of Americans. I blamed them, as well as the U.S. Government, for “not doing anything” to fix the situation in Darfur. A little over two years ago, I became aware of the- dare I say it- genocide occurring in Darfur and immediately became active. I sent letters, emails, and petitions to government agents and UN representatives, called the offices of those same people (including the President), donated money to the Save Darfur organization, and gave “Save Darfur” wristbands and apparel to my friends and family and encouraged them to join me in raising awareness about the atrocities occurring in the Sudan. However, I soon realized that was all I could do- or rather, all I was willing to do while still staying enrolled in school. Could I take time off and actually travel to the Sudan as an aid worker? Sure. But that most definitely would not singularly put a real end to what has continued to take place. Therefore I, along with other frustrated Americans, have turned to larger forces in hopes that they will use their size, strength, and prestige to help stop this disaster.
Is it reasonable to ask for the UN to deploy troops to protect these innocent civilians? I certainly don’t think so. But I have come to realize, through Ambassador Walker’s personal accounts, it’s not as easy as it seems. It is easy to place the blame on other people when you aren’t in their position. Limited resources, along with a lack of international cooperation, provide the UN with a platform on which they can stand and make a case for basically ignoring the devastation. However, the United States at this point should certainly act in the only responsible and humane way. Instead of sending our troops to Iraq, President Bush should have our soldiers protecting civilians in Darfur. Obviously, this government has ulterior motives in the decisions it makes.

[Jessica Polidoro]

Before I took this class, my attitude towards the UN was strikingly similar to that of the majority of Americans. I blamed them, as well as the U.S. Government, for “not doing anything” to fix the situation in Darfur. A little over two years ago, I became aware of the- dare I say it- genocide occurring in Darfur and immediately became active. I sent letters, emails, and petitions to government agents and UN representatives, called the offices of those same people (including the President), donated money to the Save Darfur organization, and gave “Save Darfur” wristbands and apparel to my friends and family and encouraged them to join me in raising awareness about the atrocities occurring in the Sudan. However, I soon realized that was all I could do- or rather, all I was willing to do while still staying enrolled in school. Could I take time off and actually travel to the Sudan as an aid worker? Sure. But that most definitely would not singularly put a real end to what has continued to take place. Therefore I, along with other frustrated Americans, have turned to larger forces in hopes that they will use their size, strength, and prestige to help stop this disaster.
Is it reasonable to ask for the UN to deploy troops to protect these innocent civilians? I certainly don’t think so. But I have come to realize, through Ambassador Walker’s personal accounts, it’s not as easy as it seems. It is easy to place the blame on other people when you aren’t in their position. Limited resources, along with a lack of international cooperation, provide the UN with a platform on which they can stand and make a case for basically ignoring the devastation. However, the United States at this point should certainly act in the only responsible and humane way. Instead of sending our troops to Iraq, President Bush should have our soldiers protecting civilians in Darfur. Obviously, this government has ulterior motives in the decisions it makes.

[Doug Phillips]

The American media and political elite are definitely quick to place blame on the UN, especially after the $64 billion oil-for-food scandal. America quickly pounced on any opportunity to thrash Kofi Annan during the dwindling years of his term in office. The UN has had problems with peacekeeping in the past. The issues, however, can not be blamed simply on that organization or the United States. A majority of the world powers, including the US, have not been willing to provide the soldiers, weapons and money necessary to conduct a truly effective peacekeeping effort. No one in their right mind can expect 15,000 lightly armed peacekeeping troops to standup to the likes of Hezbollah and Hamas.
Today’s world is extremely chaotic: nuclear proliferation issues in Iran and North Korea, escalating international terrorism, everlasting violence across the Middle East, and bloody tribal warfare in Sudan along with a rapidly spreading AIDS epidemic throughout Africa. It seems that the majority of these issues have their origin in smaller countries around the world. Nonetheless, they are equally threatening to all the world’s major powers. Yes, the US doesn’t always see eye-to-eye with Russia and China, but the problems facing the UN face every nation in the world.
The UN Security Council has demonstrated some unity with its stance against nuclear proliferation in Iran. If Iran continues to develop the capacity to make nuclear weapons and continues to ignore the UN, it will be interesting to see if the P5 can maintain a cohesive front. What seems to be most important, however, is that the Security Council takes advantage of this unique opportunity to rejuvenate the credibility of the UN through joint cooperation, sending a message of unity to the rest of the world. The world powers need to recognize the extraordinary benefits of working together, rather than waging diplomatic wars on their own.
Furthermore, it is unfortunate that there are only five permanent members of the Security Council. In order for the UN to generate more funding and troops for peacekeeping missions, at least Japan, Germany and India should be admitted into the P5 so that it better reflects the distribution of international power today, rather than in 1945.

[Katherine Painter]

To the first question posed by Ambassador Walker, I would unfortunately have to say yes. Americans are becoming immune to stories of despair, violence, and general misery in foreign countries. We are so far removed from the conflicts in Somalia, Lebanon, and now Darfur that it becomes more difficult to feel empathetic, let alone be roused into action to address the problem. Our physical distance from these events coupled with the media desensitization of such issues contributes to our total sense of numbness. Another reason for our apathy to world humanitarian issues would be our more isolationist position. Our national government is actually proposing to build a wall between the United States and Mexico, a truly obvious example of our increasingly xenophobic sentiments. We are effectively saying “No” to any more immigrants, in a country built on immigrant contributions. Americans are not interested in other people’s problems when we face so many domestic issues at home. This lack of caring contributes heavily to our stance towards UN policy and foreign issues.

The concerns that Ambassador Walker brings up about the UN’s inability to fulfill mandates and responsibilities because of lack of resources are very valid. I agree that the main issue is how the Security Council functions. I believe the reason that Congress and others do not have faith in the United Nations as being an effective institution to deal with international relations is because of how the different institutions of the United Nations are structured. The United States basically rules the UN. Our power can be seen through withholding our payments to the UN, using our veto in the Security Council, or just plain ignoring the wisdom of the UN (Iraq). I believe the UN could be more effective and the United States more involved if we felt that the UN was an important institution for the world community to participate in. We need for Americans to believe in the UN’s mission. Our cavalier attitude towards the UN right now limits our ability to see it as an effective means to deal with issues that are global. Therefore, we will continue to expect huge results in missions like Lebanon while not giving the UN proper resources with which to handle the crisis. Once Americans truly come on board and believe in an international governing body, perhaps peacekeeping operations like those in Darfur or Lebanon will be more effective in the future.

[Ash Wall]

The efforts of United Nations peacekeeping forces are often handicapped by the self-interest of its member states. While the permanent members of the Security Council will approve peacekeeping missions in such places as Somalia, Lebanon and Burundi they often refuse to lend their troops to the cause. The hypocrisy of the voting history among the most powerful nations in the world, including the United States, leads to drastically under funded and undersupplied missions.
The goal of the United Nations, as stated in their charter, is to: “promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.” However, the goal practiced by its member nations is far too often: look out for number one. The United States, the world’s largest military power and a permanent member of the Security Council refuses to put its troops in blue helmets to serve as United Nations peacekeepers. The result of the self-interested actions by the strongest and most capable UN members are peacekeeping forces made up of numerous nationalities that are often unprepared for the type of missions they are being placed into. The UN peacekeeping forces face many obstacles such as language barriers, equipment differences, and varying levels of training, before they are even fired upon.
The powerful nations of the world need to stop playing both sides. By voting for UN to send peacekeeping forces to enter conflict zones while at the same time not providing troops themselves the worlds super powers are able to play both sides. The powerful nations of the world can blame the United Nations when the already doomed peacekeeping efforts fail while simultaneously asserting that they did their part merely by voting.
Many commentators today contend that the United Nations has proven that it is not capable of peacekeeping. The truth is that we will never know what the United Nations is capable of until we give it a fair chance, starting at the top down.

[Jeff Corbett]

The ideology behind the United Nations is far too idealistic. But that is not the fault of the UN itself, for the most part the responsibility must be placed on the member nations of the UN who fail to compromise and work along side one another. It seems that countries in the UN are extremely hesitant to get involved in UN operations if the country is not directly affected by the crisis at hand. This is most obvious when one reviews Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which calls for member nations to provide troops for peace keeping; however the UN is always undermanned and countries are unwilling to supply troops. There is also the issue of the Security Council. At any given time five of the fifteen members will be from Western Europe or Others (such as the United States), while regions such as Africa and Asia which are much larger, receive less representation and do not have an equal voice. Also, the five permanent members of the Security Council have remained the same since WWII, even though the World’s power balance has changed significantly. As a result there is conflict within the UN and countries that are under-represented are hesitant to come to the UN’s side, understandably so.
These two factors create significant problems in “peacekeeping”. Security Council members, such as the United States, set up these UN peacekeeping operations, but then are quick to throw the blame on the UN when the operation is unsuccessful. More often than not, these operations are doomed for failure. As the article points out, can one really expect 15,000 UNIFIL troops who cannot use force to solve the problem in Lebanon? If the United States and other member nations are serious about making UN peacekeeping operations successful they need to get on the same page. Member nations that may be upset with their representation within the UN need to temporarily leave their quarrels with the UN behind, and focus on the humanitarian effort at hand . Also, There cannot be incidents like Bosnia/Serbia where the Russians block the use of force (under chapter VI of the charter) due to their ties with the Serbs. Futhermore, nations such as the United States need to seriously commit to the UN. The U.S. needs to provide more men and more aid. One cannot possibly except that the UN forces in Lebanon under Chapter VI can be effective. If the United States and other UN members are serious about UNIFIL’s success, it must be supplied with the manpower, aid, and logistics that UN member nations have the capability of providing, especially the United States. Also, UNIFIL cannot be held back by the behind the scenes politics that take place. No More Chapter VI restrictions, both Israel and Hezbollah must know that UNIFIL forces will resort to the use of force if necessary, and that it has both the manpower and the resources to do so. Until then peacekeeping operations will remain undermanned, under equipped, and seemingly doomed for failure.

[Bevin Kenny]

The US government needs to stop blaming the UN for what they are unable to accomplish in conflict zones. The United States needs to step back and think about what they would do if they were to send there own men into an area with such great conflict. Over the past few years the US has spent billions on our effort in Iraq. Much of the money goes to providing our troops with the means to defend themselves in combat. To have armor available to them at all times allows them to be prepared for any kind of attack. Most of the time our troops are trying to keep peace in Iraq and take control of opposing forces. Much of their tasks are similar to many of the situations the UNIFIL are faced with daily but are unable to do anything about. I find it unfair that we expect the UNIFIL, with out the same armament, to do the same thing we expect our troops to do in Iraq. I think we should view the UNIFIL as a “World Army.” The member countries of the UN should fund and train the UNIFIL forces like their own army. As an alliance we will be larger than opposition like Hezbollah and will not only be able to make peace but will be able to maintain peace with intimidation.