Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Agamemnon
The reason these states have vetoes is to ensure their participation, and its gone a long way in getting them permanently at the same table. The UN was the scene of many Cold War debates, and the forum of communication between the US and USSR (ie, useless).
|
A forum for communication is a good thing.
A forum for setting unenforceable resolutions/demands is a bad thing (ie: useless).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Agamemnon
The UN is the best option available, which is too bad, because as I've said a number of times, they peace-keep, they don't peace-make. (I can feel the vibration of these words hitting deaf ears....)
|
Listening to various soldiers who have served on UN duties, they most definitely do peace-make. It's what a lot of Canadian UN soldiers are doing in Afganistan (and elsewhere) right now:
Take this quote from Retired Major General Lewis MacKenzie (text found on a blog... but I've heard similar words on the radio and tv from him):
"As we improve our military's ability to project force abroad, we should dispense with the all-too Canadian conceit that what the world needs is "peacekeepers." Peacekeeping in the classic, Pearsonian sense -- whereby our troops occupy a piece of territory at the request of local belligerents -- is no longer in much demand. What is needed now are peacemakers with the weapons and mandate necessary to kill belligerents who don't want us there."