Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ethereal)
    The syrian rep's post says "imminent threat to life". How is that not saying they have a right to fight back when attacked? Surely you must be attacked to be under imminent threat to life?
    Do you really believe that the use of such subjective terms in the administration of an army is a positive step?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bikerx23)
    Do you really believe that the use of such subjective terms in the administration of an army is a positive step?
    Me personally or the RSA?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ethereal)
    Me personally or the RSA?
    Whichever you deem appropriate.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bikerx23)
    Whichever you deem appropriate.
    You know my personal views on the matter

    The RSA supports a peacekeeping unit's absolute right to defend itself. Why should someone trying to help civillians lose their lives needlessly?
    Offline

    14
    The problem is that 'an imminent threat' is subjective. Being shot at isn't. EDIT: I actually wrote that sentence before I read biker's post a few minutes ago. Great minds,eh?

    Imagine a peackeeping operation in Somalia - there's a big crowd around, looking a bit hostile, but as yet there's been no shooting or direct attacks. A jumpy peacekeeper thinks he's under an imminent threat and looses off a warning shot. Peacekeepers should be there to do just that - keep the peace, not go around shooting people up.

    But that's not really my argument. My argument is that we should keep a flexible approach - the rules of engagement should be decided based on the individual circumstances of each peacekeeping mission.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    As the UK has so capably put it, the orders on the peacekeeping force should remain tailored to the specific mission. If you were to legislate for the option to increase the range of powers, I'm sure those with a dissenting opinion could agree.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alasdair_R)
    The problem is that 'an imminent threat' is subjective. Being shot at isn't. EDIT: I actually wrote that sentence before I read biker's post a few minutes ago. Great minds,eh?

    Imagine a peackeeping operation in Somalia - there's a big crowd around, looking a bit hostile, but as yet there's been no shooting or direct attacks. A jumpy peacekeeper thinks he's under an imminent threat and looses off a warning shot. Peacekeepers should be there to do just that - keep the peace, not go around shooting people up.

    But that's not really my argument. My argument is that we should keep a flexible approach - the rules of engagement should be decided based on the individual circumstances of each peacekeeping mission.
    As current rules of engagement stand a warning shot would be permissible in that instance anyway.
    Offline

    14
    Sure, I'd agree. But I'd also say it's redundant, given that that option's already there. The Security Council and the Department of Peacekeeping can set whatever Rules of Engagement they like.

    I'm also ignoring the fact that I'm not exactly certain in what way and how far the GA can 'legislate' on matters like this...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The problem is that 'an imminent threat' is subjective.
    Perhaps a definition from the original poster as to the definition of 'imminent threat' may be in order.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alasdair_R)
    The problem is that 'an imminent threat' is subjective. Being shot at isn't. EDIT: I actually wrote that sentence before I read biker's post a few minutes ago. Great minds,eh?

    Imagine a peackeeping operation in Somalia - there's a big crowd around, looking a bit hostile, but as yet there's been no shooting or direct attacks. A jumpy peacekeeper thinks he's under an imminent threat and looses off a warning shot. Peacekeepers should be there to do just that - keep the peace, not go around shooting people up.

    But that's not really my argument. My argument is that we should keep a flexible approach - the rules of engagement should be decided based on the individual circumstances of each peacekeeping mission.
    Imagine a similar situation in somalia. A big crowd gathers and approaches towards a small group of UN peacekeepers. the crowd vastly outnumbers them and not one of them is carrying a gun or any ballistic weapon. They get to within two feet of the peacekeepers, most of them carrying large machetes, as is common in these parts. The peacekeepers are butchered to death, never were they shot at and neve were they permitted to shoot at the crowd. Now I understand that this happening like this is unlikely. I also understand the difficulties of defining an imminent threat, but essentially it should stand where looking at the situation objectively, there is a clear and imminent threat to the life of peacekeepers, be that rebels pointing rifles or a crowd carrying machetes and approaching in a threatening manner.

    Giving them a general mandate to protect themselves in these situations would greatly help peacekeepers. At the same time, they would obviously receive training about things like firing a warning shot before engaging and not just firing blindly into a crowd but taking out clear threats, and not shooting to kill unless absolutely unneccessary. The line is blurred, but rather hostiles die than peacekeepers who are there to try and help the region. Of course individual rules of engagement can choose to over rule this right if it is felt that it is not neccessary in the situation, but this would apply as a general rule.
    Offline

    14
    All this discussion on what would be appropriate when and where just re-inforces my point - we should not set down hard and fast rules of engagement for all peacekeeping missions.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alasdair_R)
    All this discussion on what would be appropriate when and where just re-inforces my point - we should not set down hard and fast rules of engagement for all peacekeeping missions.

    To be honest I cannot see one peacekeeping mission where it would not be neccessary for troops to use force in order to protect themselves from imminent threats, whether they are on a dangerous mission or not. It doesn't matter if peacekeepers are in london and they are ambushed by some terrorists or if they are in darfur and being lynched by a mob. You cannot seriously tell me that there are times when we must stop peacekeepers from protecting themselves from serious and imminent threats. If this is the case I wouldn't be surprised if we were left with no peacekeepers at all.
    Offline

    14
    I'm just not comfortable with having hard and fast rules of engagement decided by the GA forevermore. The Security Council and the Department of Peacekeeping are ca pable enough in deciding the Rules of Engagement for specific missions...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    it's not forevermore, in fact if that is your fear we can put in a review period for a years time and appoint a committee to analyze its successes and failures. However much organisations may be capable of setting the rules for individual missions, you cannot deny the rights of peacekeepers to defend themselves in situations where there is an imminent threat to life, supporting individual rules of engagements where it varies suggests that you do indeed believe that peacekeepers do not have this right.
    Offline

    14
    I don't see much point in going round and round in circles with this argument. The UK has made it's position clear - we will not support any resolution that forces a certain set of Rules of Engagement on peacekeeping missions other than on a case by case basis.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ok, will the UK use its veto power on this resolution?
    Offline

    14
    Probably.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I can't see how the UK can use its veto power i nall good faith when it withdrew its troops from UN colours because they did not have enough protection. Surely that is double standards?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ethereal)
    I can't see how the UK can use its veto power i nall good faith when it withdrew its troops from UN colours because they did not have enough protection. Surely that is double standards?
    Not if the UK does not believe that the suggestion remedies it's fears, that is a logical response.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bikerx23)
    Not if the UK does not believe that the suggestion remedies it's fears, that is a logical response.
    It's a misuse of veto
 
 
 
Poll
Did you get less than your required grades and still get into university?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.