UN Peacekeeping Troops

Germany applauds Syria's compassion for the UN Peacekeeping forces. Though engaging in open combat should be avoided wherever possible, Germany agrees that when an imminent threat to life arises, combat may well become nessercery, and given the current climate in the Middle East, with six peacekeepers being targeted recently (thread here) in Lebanon, a change of policy may well be the best course of action.

Reply 2

ukebert

Liechtenstein is against your first point, but will be willing to support it if the conditions of it being upheld are sufficiently exacting. The second and third points will be wholeheartedly supported.

Reply 3

The UK is against this - the Rules of Engagement are not blanket for all peacekeeping missions, but are written for individual missions, responding to the situation in the Forces' area of operations. To essentially 'legislate' within the UN to create blanket Rules of Engagement across all peacekeeping forces is not only foolish, but downright dangerous.

Reply 4

brimstone

India agrees wholeheartedly with the Syrian representative. We believe that it is necessary that UN peacekeeping troops have means of protecting themselves if under threat.

Reply 5

Would the UK not agree that a 'blanket' resolution covering all UN co-ordinated peace keeping missions would be advisable, if individual Rules of Engagement were able to 'overwrite' the resolution?

Reply 6

Misunderstood Beauty

Would the UK not agree that a 'blanket' resolution covering all UN co-ordinated peace keeping missions would be advisable, if individual Rules of Engagement were able to 'overwrite' the resolution?

No, I would not. First off, what would be the point? Secondly, it would create an expectation to make that Resolution the default for Rules of Engagement. What is needed is a truly individual approach to each mission, which is what we have now.

Reply 7

Alistair R

Fair point. I doubt it would create an expectation to make the Resolution the default, though I have been persuaded, through yourself and further research, that it would be easier to assess each mission for its individual merits.

Reply 8

Good stuff - glad to hear it. It's also a more in character response for Germany - the Germans don't like military operations, and would be unlikely to commit troops to peacekeeping operations in which there was a wider authorisation for the use of force (they may not even be constitutionally allowed to do so).

Reply 9

(Thanks, I've never been Germany in an MUN before, relying on the internet and my GCSE :s-smilie:

)

Germany applauds the UK delegates alternative and will support it in this matter further.

Reply 10

The RSA notes the UK government withdrew its troops from the colours of the UN in Bosnia and returned them to their own colours as they felt UK soldiers were dying because UN rules of engagement were too restrictive.

The RSA supports UN peacekeepers rights to defend themselves from all potential loss of life.

Reply 11

That is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is that Rules of Engagement should be drafted specific to the case at hand.

Reply 12

alasdair_R

That is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is that Rules of Engagement should be drafted specific to the case at hand.

It is perfectly relevent. The UN doesn't technically have a blanket rules of engagement. It works from a policy but they can be modified to fit the situation. The UK withdrew its troops from UN colours precisely because they wouldn't modify.

Reply 13

Ethereal

The UN doesn't technically have a blanket rules of engagement. It works from a policy but they can be modified to fit the situation.

Indeed - which is the way it should be. The Syrian representative on the other hand is calling for the UN to mandate that all peacekeeping missions should be allowed to shoot to kill, regardless of whether this is appropriate or not.

Reply 14

alasdair_R

If attacked. Surely the UK would support this as it would allow you to send your troops as peacekeepers under the UN colours once more?

Reply 15

Hopping Mad Kangaroo

Albania strongly believes that the UN mandates should be respected, and the Peacekeeping troops are given the protection that they require to effectively maintain peace in what otherwise would be troubled regions.

Reply 16

Ethereal

If attacked. Surely the UK would support this as it would allow you to send your troops as peacekeepers under the UN colours once more?

It's got nothing to do with what we feel the Rules of Engagement should be in most cases. It's got everything to do with allowing the flexibility of having the Rules of Engagement decided on a case-by-case basis, rather than having them dictated by fiat forevermore.

And for your information, the UK has peacekeepers deployed in UN forces in countries including Sierra Leone, Cyprus, Congo, Sudan, Liberia, Ethiopia, Afghanistan and Georgia...

Reply 17

alasdair_R

Surely an immenent threat to life should always allow a defence?

And for your information, the UK has peacekeepers deployed in UN forces in countries including Sierra Leone, Cyprus, Congo, Sudan, Liberia, Ethiopia, Afghanistan and Georgia...

They do indeed have personnel attached to those missions, but the UK troops have flown the Union Flag and regimental colours since Bosnia and go under the British Army's own rules of engagement.

Reply 18

bikerx23

Ethereal

If attacked. Surely the UK would support this as it would allow you to send your troops as peacekeepers under the UN colours once more?

6+6=12

Syria feels that the policy with regards to engaging enemy combatants should be changed. It is unfeasable to only act when shot at, it has become an infamous weakness known to potential breakers of peace and leaves the troops very unprotected.

That is not what the syrian representative advocated.

China (potentially) agrees with the UK position that flexibility is required in the use of peacekeeping troops

Reply 19