Could regional security be the future withan umbrella organization like the UN providing approval. Could the UN’s future be the rubber stamp while locals do the job?
GUAM likely to ask for mandate to conduct peacekeeping operations15 October 2006 – The GUAM committee for political issues launched an initiative to this effect within the third meeting of the GUAM Parliamentary Assembly, held in Chisinau, Moldova, on Sunday. The committee’s final resolution proposes to the Council of GUAM foreign ministers to set up a subdivision of peacekeeping forces within the organisation. Later on, this structure is to come out with proposals to get the UN or OSCE mandate to carry out peacekeeping operations
But will those peacekeepers reach Georgia in time?
The future of the U.N. could well be outsourcing approved missions to regional organizations whether the EU, AU, Shanghai Cooperation Group, NATO or even PMCs. Should the UN be a franchise so it can concentrate on its core business: discussion and decision making? If an organization, private or public lives up to its standards, why not?
Surely readers can think of a few pros and cons.
.
- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « Defending against the Ignominy of Heathenism since 1857
- » Kissinger Responds
COMMENTS / 5 COMMENTS
IJ added these pithy words on 16 Oct 06 at 5:04 pmAnother regional organisation for peacekeeping is the CSTO. It also has ambitions for ‘out of area’ military missions.
The UN would surely have to lay down geographical limits to each organisation. But the present free-for-all would be centrally controlled and there might even be some central financing available – a subject worth exploring at next month’s NATO force transformation summit?
Joe added these pithy words on 17 Oct 06 at 1:53 amI wouldn’t even say that the UN is about decision making. Its function is more along the lines of consent. If you have UN approval for an action, you know nobody can call you on it. If you don’t, you risk having the world tell you you’re in violation of international law. They don’t really decide that much per se: that’s left to member states and (occasionally) specialist organizations.
With that in mind, it makes perfect sense that security could be performed by other organizations, with the UN there to provide a sort of multilateral auditing capability.
Eddie added these pithy words on 17 Oct 06 at 12:50 pmThis development is essentially already happening, look at how the UN and AU are in a delicate act leading to the eventual UN affirmation of the AU mission in Dar Fur, rather than a UN force replacing or even augmenting the AU force.
How the US & other powers shape and nurture this development is the key, much like the growing/expanding PMC industry, if governments choose to ignore the issues and dangers at hand, then you’ll likely see a number of high-profile failures for this concept.
One could reasonably argue that the OAS owns the Haiti peacekeeping mission that has been an unmitigated disaster. Are we going to see more of these or something close to a qualified success like the AMIS AU mission in Dar Fur?
von Kaufman-Turkestansky added these pithy words on 17 Oct 06 at 1:53 pm“will those peacekeepers reach Georgia in time?”
That depends. In time for what? Before the next UN SC resolution on the subject?
http://www.messenger.com.ge/issues/1216_october_17_2006/n_1216_2.htm
IJ added these pithy words on 18 Oct 06 at 2:52 pmAn agenda item for next month´s NATO transformation summit? “The UN would surely have to lay down geographical limits to each [security] organisation.”Â?
The geographical scope, and within this the specific remits, of security organisations was a critical factor in the Falklands War.
“Wikipedia”Â?:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War explains:
“At first glance, it appeared that the U.S. had military treaty obligations to both parties [UK and Argentina] in the war, bound to the UK as a member of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and to Argentina by the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (the “Rio Pact”). However, the North Atlantic Treaty only obliges the signatories to support if the attack occurs in Europe or North America north of Tropic of Cancer, and the Rio Pact only obliges the U.S. to intervene if one of the adherents to the treaty is attacked””?the UK never attacked Argentina, only Argentine forces on British territory. In March, Secretary of State Alexander Haig directed the United States Ambassador to Argentina to warn the Argentine government away from any invasion. President Reagan requested assurances from Galtieri against an invasion and offered the services of his Vice President, George H. W. Bush, as mediator, but was refused.”
