<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Neighborhood&#160;Watch</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cominganarchy.com/2006/10/16/neighborhood-watch/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cominganarchy.com/2006/10/16/neighborhood-watch/</link>
	<description>Speak Victorian, Think Pagan</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:25:27 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: IJ</title>
		<link>http://cominganarchy.com/2006/10/16/neighborhood-watch/comment-page-1/#comment-142049</link>
		<dc:creator>IJ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:52:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cominganarchy.com/archives/2006/10/16/neighborhood-watch/#comment-142049</guid>
		<description>An agenda item for next monthÃ‚Â´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."</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>An agenda item for next month&#195;&#8218;&#194;&#180;s <span class="caps">NATO</span> transformation  summit?  &#8220;The UN would surely have to lay down geographical limits to each [security] organisation.&#8221;&#194;?</p>
<p>The geographical scope, and within this the specific remits, of security organisations was a critical factor in the Falklands War.</p>
<p>&#8220;Wikipedia&#8221;&#194;?:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War explains:</p>
<p>&#8220;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 &#8220;Rio Pact&#8221;). 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&#8221;&#8221;?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.&#8221; </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: von Kaufman-Turkestansky</title>
		<link>http://cominganarchy.com/2006/10/16/neighborhood-watch/comment-page-1/#comment-141588</link>
		<dc:creator>von Kaufman-Turkestansky</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:53:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cominganarchy.com/archives/2006/10/16/neighborhood-watch/#comment-141588</guid>
		<description>"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</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;will those peacekeepers reach Georgia in time?&#8221;<br />
That depends. In time for what? Before the next <span class="caps">UN SC</span> resolution on the subject?<br />
<a href="http://www.messenger.com.ge/issues/1216_october_17_2006/n_1216_2.htm" rel="nofollow" onclick="javascript:urchinTracker ('/outbound/comment/www.messenger.com.ge');">http://www.messenger.com.ge/issues/1216_october_17_2006/n_1216_2.htm</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eddie</title>
		<link>http://cominganarchy.com/2006/10/16/neighborhood-watch/comment-page-1/#comment-141573</link>
		<dc:creator>Eddie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:50:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cominganarchy.com/archives/2006/10/16/neighborhood-watch/#comment-141573</guid>
		<description>This 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 &#38; 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?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This 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.</p>
<p>How the <span class="caps">US </span>&#038; other powers shape and nurture this development is the key, much like the growing/expanding <span class="caps">PMC</span> industry, if governments choose to ignore the issues and dangers at hand, then you&#8217;ll likely see a number of high-profile failures for this concept.</p>
<p>One could reasonably argue that the <span class="caps">OAS</span> 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 <span class="caps">AMIS AU</span> mission in Dar Fur?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe</title>
		<link>http://cominganarchy.com/2006/10/16/neighborhood-watch/comment-page-1/#comment-141392</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Oct 2006 01:53:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cominganarchy.com/archives/2006/10/16/neighborhood-watch/#comment-141392</guid>
		<description>I 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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wouldn&#8217;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&#8217;t, you risk having the world tell you you&#8217;re in violation of international law. They don&#8217;t really <strong>decide</strong> that much per se: that&#8217;s left to member states and (occasionally) specialist organizations.</p>
<p>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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: IJ</title>
		<link>http://cominganarchy.com/2006/10/16/neighborhood-watch/comment-page-1/#comment-141288</link>
		<dc:creator>IJ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:04:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cominganarchy.com/archives/2006/10/16/neighborhood-watch/#comment-141288</guid>
		<description>Another regional organisation for peacekeeping is the "CSTO":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization.  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?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another regional organisation for peacekeeping is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization" title="" onclick="javascript:urchinTracker ('/outbound/comment/en.wikipedia.org');"><span class="caps">CSTO</span></a>.  It also has ambitions for &#8216;out of area&#8217; military missions.</p>
<p>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 &#8211; a subject worth exploring at next month&#8217;s <span class="caps">NATO</span> force transformation summit?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
