With Peacekeeping missions at an all time high across the world, Syria feels that more must be done to protect the Peacekeeping troops that partake in these missions, as they are notoriously scarred from their participation. 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. We feel that the policy should be changed to allow troops to engage an enemy combatant when under an "imminent" threat to life. At the same time there should be full reports made by troops for all discharges of weapons and full accountability of all rounds distributed among troops. Were the rest of the UN to agree, we would continue with a resolution.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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).
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.
That is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is that Rules of Engagement should be drafted specific to the case at hand.
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.