Excellent post, Dan. Two ancillary comments.....
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You see that it's mostly small countries that provide troops. I'm guessing, > by Bangladesh leading the list, that the troops are paid by the UN, not > sponsored by their own countries. That is correct. Countries are reimbursed at the rate of $1000 a month for providing peackeepers. This is naturally a financial bonus for developing countries, and not much of an incentive for richer countries. It is also worth noting that the US has had a strong historical tradition against placing its troops under foreign command. That is part of the explanation for why the US provides almost no troops to UN peacekeeping operations, in addition to the reasons you cited. It is worth noting, however, that the US funds 26% of the UN peacekeeping budget, and has veto over the establishment of all peacekeeping operations. > Finally, to address your question about handing genocide, it is clear that > the options for stopping genocide are limited. UN peacekeeping forces are, > with rare exceptions like Korea or Gulf War I, In fairness, most analysts would not describe the Korean War and Kuwait War as "peacekeeping." These missions were not under UN Command, and not part of the peacekpeeing structure. (And participants did not receive UN reimbursement.) Rather, these two cases were instances of the UN Secruity Council, acting under Chapter VII, authorized member States to use "all necessary means" to achieve an objective that the UN Security Council had judged to be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
