NationStates Jolt Archive

Eritrea has unexplainedly expelled certain UN peacekeepers (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4505994.stm)
Well? what are your thoughts on this? Apparently they have given no official reason for such an action, and both sides have fortified their borders recently. Now, I don't know that much about the reasons for the conflict, but is there any way Eritrea could hold off Ethiopia? isn't expelling the UN kind of suicidal in the event of another war?

How smart of them.

I was under the impression that they were only expelling the Ameican, Canadian, European and Russian ones but would keep the Indian, Jordanian, and other assorted peacekeepers.

Anyhow, it's just a prelude to restarting the Eritrean/Ethiopian war. I'm rooting for Ethiopia because I happen to like Rastafarians.

I was under the impression that they were only expelling the Ameican, Canadian, European and Russian ones but would keep the Indian, Jordanian, and other assorted peacekeepers.

Anyhow, it's just a prelude to restarting the Eritrean/Ethiopian war. I'm rooting for Ethiopia because I happen to like Rastafarians.
Ooops, my bad. I inserted a 'certain' in my original post now.

I was under the impression that they were only expelling the Ameican, Canadian, European and Russian ones but would keep the Indian, Jordanian, and other assorted peacekeepers.

Only expel the ones who might interfere. Keep the ones who will stand around and watch people kill each other.

Another fine example of the UN in action.

Only expel the ones who might interfere. Keep the ones who will stand around and watch people kill each other.

Another fine example of the UN in action.
Yeah, but as I said, Eritrea will surely get owned. (http://www.nationmaster.com/pie-T/mil_arm_for_per&int=-1&id=er&id=et)
More proof (http://www.nationmaster.com/red/pie-T/mil_exp_dol_fig&int=-1&id=er&id=et)
What a retarded thing to do - get rid of the only people who are protecting you, and piss them off so they may not come back when you need them!

Yeah, but as I said, Eritrea will surely get owned. (http://www.nationmaster.com/pie-T/mil_arm_for_per&int=-1&id=er&id=et)
More proof (http://www.nationmaster.com/red/pie-T/mil_exp_dol_fig&int=-1&id=er&id=et)
What a retarded thing to do - get rid of the only people who areprotecting you, and piss them off so they may not come back when you need them!

Maybe they have a secret weapon.

Maybe they have a secret weapon.
Some sort of laser death ray?
On a serious note, though, they must have some rational reason for doing this...

Some sort of laser death ray?
On a serious note, though, they must have some rational reason for doing this...

Maybe they don't want a bunch of rapists/murderers in the country?

Some sort of laser death ray?
On a serious note, though, they must have some rational reason for doing this...

No, I'm serious. Consider that smallpox used to be in the area in the 1970s. Just go dig up some corpses...

No, I'm serious. Consider that smallpox used to be in the area in the 1970s. Just go dig up some corpses...
Ah. It's just such a rare occasion that someone on here is serious that I always assume they aren't being :cool:.

Maybe they don't want a bunch of rapists/murderers in the country?
Do you have any kind of documentation for such a statement? (not saying that it's not true, I'm just kind of enamored with the UN, and I'd hate to see my bubble burst).

No, I'm serious. Consider that smallpox used to be in the area in the 1970s. Just go dig up some corpses...
Would the smallpox still be any good if it's in a corpse that's been rotting for three decades? Usually smallpox is stored in freezers.

Yeah, but as I said, Eritrea will surely get owned.
In the last war, Eritrea lost only 19,000 soldiers while Ethiopia lost 123,000.

Yeah, but as I said, Eritrea will surely get owned. (http://www.nationmaster.com/pie-T/mil_arm_for_per&int=-1&id=er&id=et)
More proof (http://www.nationmaster.com/red/pie-T/mil_exp_dol_fig&int=-1&id=er&id=et)
What a retarded thing to do - get rid of the only people who are protecting you, and piss them off so they may not come back when you need them!


I don't know if Eritrea will get pwned or not, but I do know that your two charts there don't prove anything. If you would have done that chart ten years ago it would have been even more lopsided in Ethiopia's favor but they still lost (or at least Eritrea held its own against them). As always, Ethiopia won't be able to send massive amounts of troops up there to invade Eritrea, they can't abandon the rest of their territory or they will have chaos all over with the different groups.

Would the smallpox still be any good if it's in a corpse that's been rotting for three decades? Usually smallpox is stored in freezers.

Don't know. It's a virus. It's not supposed to survive in open air or sunlight - but it's survived being airborne in several incidents in the former Soviet Union.

We got our recent copy of the 1918 flu virus from corpses.

Would you want to call their bluff?

Eritrea has unexplainedly expelled certain UN peacekeepers (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4505994.stm)
Well? what are your thoughts on this? Apparently they have given no official reason for such an action, and both sides have fortified their borders recently. Now, I don't know that much about the reasons for the conflict, but is there any way Eritrea could hold off Ethiopia? isn't expelling the UN kind of suicidal in the event of another war?
Based on past information about how "peacekeepers" behave in situations like the one in Eritrea, they were probably expelled for raping the local women! :(

In the last war, Eritrea lost only 19,000 soldiers while Ethiopia lost 123,000.
Wow, maybe they can pull if off... if they maintain the same casualty ratio, to annhilate ethiopia's forces, they'd lose only a quarter of theirs.... interesting...

Wow, maybe they can pull if off... if they maintain the same casualty ratio, to annhilate ethiopia's forces, they'd lose only a quarter of theirs.... interesting...
Ah, so they have the ultimate weapon - brains.

I don't know if Eritrea will get pwned or not, but I do know that your two charts there don't prove anything. If you would have done that chart ten years ago it would have been even more lopsided in Ethiopia's favor but they still lost (or at least Eritrea held its own against them). As always, Ethiopia won't be able to send massive amounts of troops up there to invade Eritrea, they can't abandon the rest of their territory or they will have chaos all over with the different groups.
Yeah, charts such as 'mine' are often misleading, because they ignore so much other information, such as training and equipment. Although, ethiopia has a much larger military budget. Did they have such a large one before the last war?

Only expel the ones who might interfere. Keep the ones who will stand around and watch people kill each other.

Another fine example of the UN in action.

And what do you expect the UN to do? What would your reaction be?

And what do you expect the UN to do? What would your reaction be?

Keep the peace - although I must admit that the traditional UN meaning of "peacekeeping" is "make sure the people committing the atrocities can continue to do so until they're tired of it".

Keep the peace.

And again, what do you expect them to do when the country they are supposed to keep the peace in expel them? Stay against the governments will?

And again, what do you expect them to do when the country they are supposed to keep the peace in expel them? Stay against the governments will?

They're supposed to keep the peace. That's their mission. They obviously are never any good at it.

They're supposed to keep the peace. That's their mission. They obviously are never any good at it.
The government of the country expelled them - what the hell are they supposed to do? it's not their job to fight to remain in a country when they're not wanted, and no one could blame them for obeying their host country's wishes.

The government of the country expelled them? what the hell are they supposed to do? it's not their job to fight to remain in a country when they're not wanted, and no one could blame them for obeying their host country's wishes.
Then they aren't really "peacekeepers", are they now?

They're more like "guests" or "visitors" who just happen to be in uniform. As soon as something bad happens, either they are run off, or they sit there with their hands in their pockets.

Don't diss the Eritrean resistance. That being said, for the Rastafarian argument, if Haile Selassie came back he'd wipe the Eritreans right off the map, then take the rest of Africa, then start a full scale invasion of the US and EU, with Russian and China as allies. Hell yeah.

Then they aren't really "peacekeepers", are they now?

They're more like "guests" or "visitors" who just happen to be in uniform. As soon as something bad happens, either they are run off, or they sit there with their hands in their pockets.
The UN is loathe to unilaterally act in disputes between countries. They usually ask for mediation from one of the affected countries. Obviously, once the request for help is withdrawn, they have no choice but to leave. If this situation turns into open conflict again, they may go back and break it up, but, like I said, they dislike doing so without invitation. If Eritrea wishes them to leave, they can only assume they know what they are asking for, and obey the request.

They're supposed to keep the peace. That's their mission. They obviously are never any good at it.

To keep the peace, yes. By making sure every part of a peacetreaty fulfills their obligations. Not to get involved in a war - then further UN involvement is needed.

And yes, they are guests.

Peacekeepers are not peacemakers. They have a pistol and drive around refugee camps and tell the two sides how imporant it is to keep up the peace process. Peacekeepers come in when the two sides want them to. There should (in theory) already be peace, hence the peace keeping

Peacekeepers are not peacemakers. They have a pistol and drive around refugee camps and tell the two sides how imporant it is to keep up the peace process. Peacekeepers come in when the two sides want them to. There should (in theory) already be peace, hence the peace keeping
Yes, exactly, and that's what happened in the last Eritrea-Ethiopia conflict. The war was over, then both sides agreed to international mediation.

On 12 December 2000, the belligerents agreed to a comprehensive peace agreement and binding arbitration of their disputes under the Algiers Agreement. A 25-kilometer-wide Temporary Security Zone was established within Eritrea, patrolled by United Nations peacekeeping forces from over 60 countries (the United Nations Mission in Eritrea and Ethiopia, or UNMEE).

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrean-Ethiopian_War)

To keep the peace, yes. By making sure every part of a peacetreaty fulfills their obligations. Not to get involved in a war - then further UN involvement is needed.

And yes, they are guests.
It obviously doesn't work. UN "peacekeeping" has presided over and tolerated more massacres of more people since the inception of the UN than were killed by Hitler.

It obviously doesn't work. UN "peacekeeping" has presided over and tolerated more massacres of more people since the inception of the UN than were killed by Hitler.
Flawed and outdated as it may be (the only reason vetos exist was to keep Germany in check - anyone think it's time to bring the UN into the 21st century?), I still love the principle of the UN, and wish it worked like the theory. Working for the UN is my dream.

It obviously doesn't work. UN "peacekeeping" has presided over and tolerated more massacres of more people since the inception of the UN than were killed by Hitler.

I disagree with what you are saying. There hasn't been many cross border wars between two or more countries. Those massacres occured within the territory of the government commiting them. UN peacekeepers don't stop that sort of thing.

I disagree with what you are saying. There hasn't been many cross border wars between two or more countries. Those massacres occured within the territory of the government commiting them. UN peacekeepers don't stop that sort of thing.
Ahem.

Plenty of crossborder wars. And the only one that has peacekeepers that have actually worked are the MFO observers who are in the Sinai - and they are NOT UN peacekeepers.

The UN is sending "peacekeepers" to keep the peace in these areas of internal strife. It is their job to keep the peace in those places where massacres are happenning. Otherwise, call them "massacre observers" so we can more accurately frame what they really do.

Ahem.

Plenty of crossborder wars. And the only one that has peacekeepers that have actually worked are the MFO observers who are in the Sinai - and they are NOT UN peacekeepers.

The UN is sending "peacekeepers" to keep the peace in these areas of internal strife. It is their job to keep the peace in those places where massacres are happenning. Otherwise, call them "massacre observers" so we can more accurately frame what they really do.
Yes, like I said, it's flawed. It needs a complete restructuring. Rules such as the 'cannot fire unless fired upon' results in UN soldiers having to watch atrocities happen, because the people doing the atrocities aren't stupid enough to actually fire on the UN.

The UN has presided over some of the most bloodiest time in humanity, but that mainly is because of people like Mao and Pol Pot who killed their own people. For instance, the Sudan genocide is the Sudanese government (yes, the government, people on horseback don't have Russian cargo planes with loaded with bombs.) I still think most are internal and not external, which is what the UN is supposed to do something about.

It obviously doesn't work. UN "peacekeeping" has presided over and tolerated more massacres of more people since the inception of the UN than were killed by Hitler.
The UN has rarely, if ever, been given authority to do little more than just watching. Remember that the mandate of a peacekeeping force is determined by the Security Council in each case. The permanent members have to stop vetoing peacekeeping missions and need to give them more of a mandate to intervene in stopping massacres, or work on a clear set of guidelines about when the UN should intervene and how.

As it is it's painfully inadequate.

The UN has rarely, if ever, been given authority to do little more than just watching. Remember that the mandate of a peacekeeping force is determined by the Security Council in each case. The permanent members have to stop vetoing peacekeeping missions and need to give them more of a mandate to intervene in stopping massacres, or work on a clear set of guidelines about when the UN should intervene and how.

As it is it's painfully inadequate.
They need to change the name of the missions. "Peacekeeping" is obviously false, and leads some people (who are about to be massacred) to believe that someone is there to save them.

We should call them "witness missions" or "referee missions".

The UN has rarely, if ever, been given authority to do little more than just watching. Remember that the mandate of a peacekeeping force is determined by the Security Council in each case. The permanent members have to stop vetoing peacekeeping missions and need to give them more of a mandate to intervene in stopping massacres, or work on a clear set of guidelines about when the UN should intervene and how.

As it is it's painfully inadequate.
That's not going to happen. What has to happen is that the veto power must be removed entirely. It's a relic from the 40's, designed for one purpose only: to keep Germany in check. Since Germany is now no longer a psychotic threat, vetos need to be removed. (I know, I know, that isn't likely either, but I can dream, dammit!)

We should call them "witness missions" or "referee missions".
"Referee missions"?

"Sorry, you killed someone past the white line. The opposite side gets a free shot" :)

Anyway, I do agree. "Peacekeeping" also helps the rest of the world into believing that their governments are doing something. If you tell them that a number of soldiers were sent on a "massacre watching mission" in which they would stand by while people killed each other, then they would probably not feel as good with themselves.

Plenty of crossborder wars. And the only one that has peacekeepers that have actually worked are the MFO observers who are in the Sinai - and they are NOT UN peacekeepers.

And Cyprus? East-Timor? What about the peacekeepers in Iran and Iraq after the war from 1980-1988? Or before the MFO took over the United Nations peacekeeping-duties in 1979, after six years? As far as I can tell, there have been several sucsessfull peacekeeping-missions since 1948.