This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- International Relations
- How to Convert MSG to PST with Attachments ?
- How to take a backup of Office 365?
- uni kicking me out for attendance?
- Should I turn down LSE to reapply for Oxford?
- How to Recover and Convert OST Files
- Lse or Kcl for refugee studies?
- Submitting wrong file format for an exam --- penalties?
- St. Andrews vs LSE: Which to pick?
- Non-accredited Degree
- Urgently need a tenancy takeover in Liverpool!
- Make it More Pasta-ey !!
- Medical School
- Oxford MBA Chances? Help please :C
- Want to switch course
- University of Surrey
- How long are the Physiotherapy MSc programme breaks?
- Computer science at ICL
- Can sometime rate my cv please?
- Make it More Tea-ey !!
Resolution 2007/44, concerning the formation of a UN Peacekeepers Programme
This poll is closed
Do you support Resolution 2007/44?
Yes0%
No0%
Abstain0%
Total votes: 0
Committee: Peacekeeping & Disarmament
Submitted by: The Principality of Liechtenstein
Noting that peacekeeping missions are often hindered by a lack of knowledge of the area in question, and a lack of understanding between it and the local people,
Further Noting that in some areas there is no force stationed for use in national emergencies (such as fires, floods, aid etc.,
Reminding the UN that in this time missions involving the use of force are needed at an increased frequency,
Convinced that a UN program would at least in part solve these programs, by countering the forces felt at this time to global security,
Confident that a pre-established force could cut the costs involved in a peacekeeping mission, and could ultimately save lives at risk from forces running contrary to the UN.
1. Proposes the creation of the United Nations Peacekeepers Programme (UNPP), for use by the UN in cases of Chapters VI and VII action;
2. Affirms that this program shall be answerable to the Security Council and the Secretary General;
3. Further Proposes that:
1) That in each country where it is deemed preferable by the representative of that country acting under the wishes of the country's government, or by the GA, SC and SG when this country is itself violating Chapters VI or VII, that a permanent force of a size appropriate to the region, split into sub forces if necessary, be deployed. Note that this does nothave to be restricted to those countries that are violating the UN charter, nor those who have no form of protection;
2) That those stationed in a particular country be capable of understanding and integrating with the local people, ideally being of the area themselves where at all possible;
3) That those stationed permanently be comprised of volunteers, who upon joining the forces would relinquish their sovereign nationality and be issued with a United Nations passport;
4) That when not instructed by the UN to partake in a military operation the force residing in a country deploy itself at the service of the leaders of that country to do peacetime work, except when that action would be beyond their mandate or involve violent action, at which point they would submit a report to the UN and await developments;
5) That in addition to the forces described above, a centralised UN peacekeeping force be created, which will support the individual forces where necessary at the discretion of the SC and SG, to be no larger than brigade size and be constructed purely of volunteers and based at a rotating number of designated neutral sites;
6) That all peacekeepers obey the code of conduct already in place, and that an oath of neutrality be sworn to the UN;
7) That the existing Military Staff Committee should be responsible for the regulating and reviewing the programme, and that every 6 months theer will be a full review of each position in addition to up to 3 spot checks every year. Regular reports will also have to be sent back to the MSC, in order that the performence of the units can be regulated;
8) That all members be individually chosen on merit by the UN, through a detailed recruitment scheme to best determine whether they are suited for the post;
9) That all units operate under the standard of the United Nations;
4. Requests that the UN provide a budget for the funding of this programme, relative to the size and importance in eache area, and calls upon member states to cooperate with the units stationed therein,
5. Reaffirms the UN’s duty to safeguard peace to all peoples across the globe.
Submitted by: The Principality of Liechtenstein
Noting that peacekeeping missions are often hindered by a lack of knowledge of the area in question, and a lack of understanding between it and the local people,
Further Noting that in some areas there is no force stationed for use in national emergencies (such as fires, floods, aid etc.,
Reminding the UN that in this time missions involving the use of force are needed at an increased frequency,
Convinced that a UN program would at least in part solve these programs, by countering the forces felt at this time to global security,
Confident that a pre-established force could cut the costs involved in a peacekeeping mission, and could ultimately save lives at risk from forces running contrary to the UN.
1. Proposes the creation of the United Nations Peacekeepers Programme (UNPP), for use by the UN in cases of Chapters VI and VII action;
2. Affirms that this program shall be answerable to the Security Council and the Secretary General;
3. Further Proposes that:
1) That in each country where it is deemed preferable by the representative of that country acting under the wishes of the country's government, or by the GA, SC and SG when this country is itself violating Chapters VI or VII, that a permanent force of a size appropriate to the region, split into sub forces if necessary, be deployed. Note that this does nothave to be restricted to those countries that are violating the UN charter, nor those who have no form of protection;
2) That those stationed in a particular country be capable of understanding and integrating with the local people, ideally being of the area themselves where at all possible;
3) That those stationed permanently be comprised of volunteers,
4) That when not instructed by the UN to partake in a military operation the force residing in a country deploy itself at the service of the leaders of that country to do peacetime work, except when that action would be beyond their mandate or involve violent action, at which point they would submit a report to the UN and await developments;
5) That in addition to the forces described above, a centralised UN peacekeeping force be created, which will support the individual forces where necessary at the discretion of the SC and SG, to be no larger than brigade size and be constructed purely of volunteers and based at a rotating number of designated neutral sites;
6) That all peacekeepers obey the code of conduct already in place, and that an oath of neutrality be sworn to the UN;
7) That the existing Military Staff Committee should be responsible for the regulating and reviewing the programme, and that every 6 months theer will be a full review of each position in addition to up to 3 spot checks every year. Regular reports will also have to be sent back to the MSC, in order that the performence of the units can be regulated;
8) That all members be individually chosen on merit by the UN, through a detailed recruitment scheme to best determine whether they are suited for the post;
9) That all units operate under the standard of the United Nations;
4. Requests that the UN provide a budget for the funding of this programme, relative to the size and importance in eache area, and calls upon member states to cooperate with the units stationed therein,
5. Reaffirms the UN’s duty to safeguard peace to all peoples across the globe.
Scroll to see replies
If I understand what you're trying to do, you seem to be wanting to have permanent UN military posts in every country. This strikes me as unwieldy. A far better solution is to have a permanent UN Peacekeeping force amounting to the equivalent of a couple of brigades, equipped for peacekeeping duties, stationed somewhere central and able to deploy quickly in times of need.
Also - a 50-nation comittee to run the thing? Christ, I can hardly think of anything more unwieldy. Besides - the Military Staff Comittee already exists.
Also - a 50-nation comittee to run the thing? Christ, I can hardly think of anything more unwieldy. Besides - the Military Staff Comittee already exists.
Tanzania is unable to support this resolution.
alasdair_R
If I understand what you're trying to do, you seem to be wanting to have permanent UN military posts in every country. This strikes me as unwieldy. A far better solution is to have a permanent UN Peacekeeping force amounting to the equivalent of a couple of brigades, equipped for peacekeeping duties, stationed somewhere central and able to deploy quickly in times of need.
Also - a 50-nation comittee to run the thing? Christ, I can hardly think of anything more unwieldy. Besides - the Military Staff Comittee already exists.
Also - a 50-nation comittee to run the thing? Christ, I can hardly think of anything more unwieldy. Besides - the Military Staff Comittee already exists.
I'll amend to the Military Staff Committee, that'll make it a lot easier.
It's not necessarily permanent military forces, they will be under the control of the respective governments, and will help in disaster relief, they will augment any emergency services etc.
The problem with having a Brigade somewhere central is in times of crisis it will take a lot of time to get the force to the desired location, whereas with a smaller force it can act in emergencies more quickly.
Australia will not commit to supporting this resolution in its current form; the resolution seems almost to be encouraging the formation of a UN army under the smoke screen of peace keeping.
Whilst Australia feels this resoltuion is positive at its core, we will not commit at this stage for the afforementioned reasons.
Whilst Australia feels this resoltuion is positive at its core, we will not commit at this stage for the afforementioned reasons.
Australia would be inclined to support this resolution if the following ammendments were made:
Australia feels if the force were from the area itself it would:
1. Result in bias
2. Negate the aim of efficency
Australia feels that while the force should work alongside the government it should not be at the governments disposal. Countries may become reliant on this "peacekeeping" help that, we believe, should never be trusted as a long term solution.
Australia feels this proposition is to vague.
Australia would request revision of the word "fight" we feel a peacekeeping force should not be looked upon in this context and should nly be using force or violence where absolutely neccessary.
on revision of these points Australia would be put at ease
2) That those stationed in a particular country be capable of understanding and integrating with the local people, ideally being of the area themselves where at all possible;
Australia feels if the force were from the area itself it would:
1. Result in bias
2. Negate the aim of efficency
4) That when not instructed by the UN to partake in a military operation the force residing in a country deploy itself at the service of the leaders of that country, except when that action would be beyond their mandate, at which point they would submit a report to the UN and await developments;
Australia feels that while the force should work alongside the government it should not be at the governments disposal. Countries may become reliant on this "peacekeeping" help that, we believe, should never be trusted as a long term solution.
9) That all members be individually chosen on merit buy the UN;
Australia feels this proposition is to vague.
10) That all units fight under the standard of the United Nations;
Australia would request revision of the word "fight" we feel a peacekeeping force should not be looked upon in this context and should nly be using force or violence where absolutely neccessary.
on revision of these points Australia would be put at ease
can I ask why nations wont support this resolution?
This is one of those silly things that people vote against because there's no real data on what their nation would think of it. So I'm voting on what makes the most sense, and I think in this case, with decent safegueards (read, power concentrated in Security Council hands), the UK would support something like this in principle.
That said, the UK is against this resolution mostly because of the way it's organised - we'd prefer to see a rapid reaction force, centrally located, and ready for quick deployment to genocide/warzones at the behest of the Security Council.
That said, the UK is against this resolution mostly because of the way it's organised - we'd prefer to see a rapid reaction force, centrally located, and ready for quick deployment to genocide/warzones at the behest of the Security Council.
alasdair_R
This is one of those silly things that people vote against because there's no real data on what their nation would think of it. So I'm voting on what makes the most sense, and I think in this case, with decent safegueards (read, power concentrated in Security Council hands), the UK would support something like this in principle.
That said, the UK is against this resolution mostly because of the way it's organised - we'd prefer to see a rapid reaction force, centrally located, and ready for quick deployment to genocide/warzones at the behest of the Security Council.
That said, the UK is against this resolution mostly because of the way it's organised - we'd prefer to see a rapid reaction force, centrally located, and ready for quick deployment to genocide/warzones at the behest of the Security Council.
What do you mean bty centrally located? Note that I do have a main brigade for that purpose anyway. If you wish I could put this force solely in the hands of the SC (if I haven't already)
Whilst Poland agrees in principle that UN deployments should consider local conditions in determining how they operate (including the use of local knowledge, guides, and an understanding of local practices), Poland suspects that the formation of such a force is potentially harmful in several areas;
Whilst Poland appreciates the need for UN deployment under certain situations it is not within the UNs mandate (or financial power) to supersede local authorities on a general, pre-emptive basis; such an action removes the boundary between the UN as an international arbiter and a national police-force.
National identity in many developing nations is a contentious issue and asking for any individual to acquiesse in handing in their 'nationality' has symbolic potency which cannot be determined from an institutionalised, UN perspective.
Poland believes that is not within the UNs mandate nor ability to finance military occupational forces in pre-emptive roles within other nations. The use ,regulation, and operation of these forces would be impossible to discern.
1) That in each country where it is deemed necessary by the GA, SC and SG (including the representative of the country in question except when this country is itself violating Chapters VI or VII, or that the GA or SC decide that special conditions apply, that a permanent force of a size appropriate to the region, split into sub forces if necessary, be deployed. Note that this may not, or will not be restricted to those countries that are violating the UN charter, nor those who have no form of protection;
Whilst Poland appreciates the need for UN deployment under certain situations it is not within the UNs mandate (or financial power) to supersede local authorities on a general, pre-emptive basis; such an action removes the boundary between the UN as an international arbiter and a national police-force.
3) That those stationed permanently be comprised of volunteers, who upon joining the forces would relinquish their sovereign nationality and be issued with a United Nations passport;
National identity in many developing nations is a contentious issue and asking for any individual to acquiesse in handing in their 'nationality' has symbolic potency which cannot be determined from an institutionalised, UN perspective.
4) That when not instructed by the UN to partake in a military operation the force residing in a country deploy itself at the service of the leaders of that country, except when that action would be beyond their mandate, at which point they would submit a report to the UN and await developments;
Poland believes that is not within the UNs mandate nor ability to finance military occupational forces in pre-emptive roles within other nations. The use ,regulation, and operation of these forces would be impossible to discern.
veggie4life
Australia would be inclined to support this resolution if the following ammendments were made:
Australia feels if the force were from the area itself it would:
1. Result in bias
2. Negate the aim of efficency
Australia feels that while the force should work alongside the government it should not be at the governments disposal. Countries may become reliant on this "peacekeeping" help that, we believe, should never be trusted as a long term solution.
Australia feels this proposition is to vague.
Australia would request revision of the word "fight" we feel a peacekeeping force should not be looked upon in this context and should nly be using force or violence where absolutely neccessary.
on revision of these points Australia would be put at ease
Australia feels if the force were from the area itself it would:
1. Result in bias
2. Negate the aim of efficency
Australia feels that while the force should work alongside the government it should not be at the governments disposal. Countries may become reliant on this "peacekeeping" help that, we believe, should never be trusted as a long term solution.
Australia feels this proposition is to vague.
Australia would request revision of the word "fight" we feel a peacekeeping force should not be looked upon in this context and should nly be using force or violence where absolutely neccessary.
on revision of these points Australia would be put at ease
Good post
1. On the other hand, if the peacekeepers were not from the area it would result in ill will towards the units, i.e they would be seen as invaders. Also notice that in the majority of cases any action that they would see would be in the wishes of the local people, and against the wishes of the government.
If a government has no such help, and has not enough money to form such help, then I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect the country tyo rely on them to a certain extent, in the same way that they rely on their Police, Firefighters and representatives of the other emergency services.
It is too vague, you're right
I'll amend when I have time.Likewise, I'll change that.
ukebert
Good post
1. On the other hand, if the peacekeepers were not from the area it would result in ill will towards the units, i.e they would be seen as invaders. Also notice that in the majority of cases any action that they would see would be in the wishes of the local people, and against the wishes of the government.
If a government has no such help, and has not enough money to form such help, then I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect the country tyo rely on them to a certain extent, in the same way that they rely on their Police, Firefighters and representatives of the other emergency services.
It is too vague, you're right I'll amend when I have time.
Likewise, I'll change that.
1. On the other hand, if the peacekeepers were not from the area it would result in ill will towards the units, i.e they would be seen as invaders. Also notice that in the majority of cases any action that they would see would be in the wishes of the local people, and against the wishes of the government.
If a government has no such help, and has not enough money to form such help, then I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect the country tyo rely on them to a certain extent, in the same way that they rely on their Police, Firefighters and representatives of the other emergency services.
It is too vague, you're right
I'll amend when I have time.Likewise, I'll change that.
Whilst Australia welcomes these ammendments we feel as, it would seem, does Poland that point 4 needs negotiation.
If a compromise was made on point four Australia would support this resolution.
OOC: Although theres no real stance to suggest Australia would support a reolution such as this one, I belive it is in the best interests of Australia and would therefore be supported.
Catsmeat
Whilst Poland agrees in principle that UN deployments should consider local conditions in determining how they operate (including the use of local knowledge, guides, and an understanding of local practices), Poland suspects that the formation of such a force is potentially harmful in several areas;
The placement of such forces will be decided on an individual basis and at the discretion of the UN. I'll amend to make it clearer.
Whilst Poland appreciates the need for UN deployment under certain situations it is not within the UNs mandate (or financial power) to supersede local authorities on a general, pre-emptive basis; such an action removes the boundary between the UN as an international arbiter and a national police-force.
As it says, it would only be in agreement with the country in question, except when the country itself is in violation of the charter, i.e when a force is required there anyway. It is anticipated that many countries opt for this programme.
National identity in many developing nations is a contentious issue and asking for any individual to acquiesse in handing in their 'nationality' has symbolic potency which cannot be determined from an institutionalised, UN perspective.
If the wishes of the GA are for it, then I will remove that point.
Poland believes that is not within the UNs mandate nor ability to finance military occupational forces in pre-emptive roles within other nations. The use ,regulation, and operation of these forces would be impossible to discern.
The point is that they will not be in a military role within the other nations unless called for by the GA and SC. The regulation will be carried out at strategic intervals, and regular reports will be required to be sent back to the Military Staff Committee.
veggie4life
can I ask why nations wont support this resolution?
Tanzania is not fully convinced of the UN peacekeeping program's benefits.
Russia is equally unconvinced of the merit of such a programme, which appears at face value to be a costly militia building activity. Whilst we are sure that greater local knowledge would be of benefit to peacekeepers, there is equally the risk of these UN troops becoming targets, as well as the obvious administrative nightmare caused by this plan.
Related discussions
- International Relations
- How to Convert MSG to PST with Attachments ?
- How to take a backup of Office 365?
- uni kicking me out for attendance?
- Should I turn down LSE to reapply for Oxford?
- How to Recover and Convert OST Files
- Lse or Kcl for refugee studies?
- Submitting wrong file format for an exam --- penalties?
- St. Andrews vs LSE: Which to pick?
- Non-accredited Degree
- Urgently need a tenancy takeover in Liverpool!
- Make it More Pasta-ey !!
- Medical School
- Oxford MBA Chances? Help please :C
- Want to switch course
- University of Surrey
- How long are the Physiotherapy MSc programme breaks?
- Computer science at ICL
- Can sometime rate my cv please?
- Make it More Tea-ey !!
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
LSE politics and Economics 2023/2024Last reply 1 minute ago
Is it really such a bad thing to have an undefined relationshipLast reply 1 minute ago
Home Office: Immigration Enforcement Casework Support AO 2024Last reply 3 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 11 minutes ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 12 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 13 minutes ago
Official Dental Hygiene and Therapy (Oral Health Science) 2024 Entry ThreadDentistry
2909
Last reply 15 minutes ago
Official: Aston University A100 2024 Entry Applicant threadMedical Schools
1149
Last reply 16 minutes ago
Pqip assesment centre role playLast reply 16 minutes ago
ATAS (Academic, Technology, Approval Scheme) Certificate 2023/2024Last reply 18 minutes ago
Official: Brighton and Sussex (BSMS) A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsTrending
Last reply 33 minutes ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 9 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 33 minutes ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 9 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
