Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame
Well there is a few smaller ones. The Renamo rebels in Mozambique were successful disarmed and brought in again as a political party, with UN peacekeeping being in the middle of that. The handover of power in Liberia from Charles Taylor to Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf in 2005 could be considered another one.
I guess the definition of "success" is debatable though.
|
This situation is far different. At this point Syria's leaders don't care about the international outcries so throwing in some lightly armed UN peacekeepers in white painted jeeps and lightly armored personal carriers is going to get a lot of them killed.
UN Peacekeeping is only going to effectively work if both sides care about international opinion.
In this case the Syrian's are using aircraft, hardeened infantry, heavy artillary and armored units including tanks.
All that's going to happen if the UN intervenes is that some poor sob making a few extra bucks for peacekeeping duties is going to end up dead.
Peacekeeping today fails more often or not because the UN doesn't know how to apply needed muscle.
You have the Syrians on one side with a very well armed fairly modern Military with heavy formations, on the other side you have lightly armed civillians and some former military members. If you throw in the UN then you'd better have a way to peal back the enemies artillary and armor units or you're just gonna end up dead.
UN Peacekeeping is a flawed concept especially in a modern world where your dealing with enemies that just don't care.
The only reason why Peacekeeping would ever work is if you had rational enemies on both sides that are willing to back down due to international pressure (Suez canal).