Display:
Correct, but if the government is supporting the genocide, then the logical outcome is that you can't "peacekeep," and it would seem that logically you have to "regime change."

But, my depressing conclusion is that that is politically unlikely to be supported in most countries around the world.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 11:33:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A question is whether regime change would be an improvement. It often isn't. This seems to be a long running and deep conflict fuelled by sectarianism and racism, fed by assorted colonial powers and funded with oil money. How you do change the regime to something acceptable?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 11:35:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I hate to repeat myself, but if there is no peace to keep you cannot send in "peacekeepers". According to the Sudan Tribune article I quote on a parallel thread, this proposed UN force would be Police and Military Police. Now a fighting force.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 11:38:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
migeru wrote:
if there is no peace to keep you cannot send in "peacekeepers".

"Peacekeepers" can have either a Chapter VI mandate for peacekeeping (=keeping the peace) or a Chapter VII for peaceenforcement (trying to create peace, where none exists).

The bluehelmets operating under a Chapter VII peace enforcement mandate are also called "Peacekeepers".

"Peaceenforcers" would be a better term, but the charta (?) and everybody only refer to them as "Peacekeepers".


Atlantic Review - A press digest on transatlantic affairs edited by three German Fulbright Alumni

by Atlantic Review (bl -at- atlanticreview dot org) on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 12:15:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series