Full Version: A failure of multilateralism
The recent Israeli-Hezbollah shoot out was ended (at least temporarily) when both sides agreed in principle to the terms of UN Resolution 1701.
Under the deal, brokered primarily by France and the United States, 15,000 UN peacekeepers would be deployed to Southern Lebanon to assist the Lebanese army in keeping the peace.
France agreed to "take the lead" in the multi-national force to be deployed to Lebanon. Source: Reuters
France has now indicated that it will deploy 200 additional troops to Lebanon (in addition to the 200 it already has there), bring its total commitment to 400 soldiers.
Now perhaps Italy is going to step forward. Weak UN mandate stalls Lebanon peacekeepers
The Lebanese government seems to be a part of the problem, not wanting the authority of UNIFIL to be too broad.
Questions for debate:
What caused France to change its mind? What makes other countries reluctant to send troops in, especially now that the situation seems to have stabilized?
What does this development say about the usefulness of international negotiations?
What does this development say about the state of the United Nations as an agent or facilitator of negotiations?
Under the deal, brokered primarily by France and the United States, 15,000 UN peacekeepers would be deployed to Southern Lebanon to assist the Lebanese army in keeping the peace.
France agreed to "take the lead" in the multi-national force to be deployed to Lebanon. Source: Reuters
QUOTE
France is willing to lead a new U.N. force in Lebanon at least until February, so long as it is given a clear mandate and sufficient powers, Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said on Wednesday.
Alliot-Marie told French television she hoped a large number of European and Muslim countries would take part in the beefed-up U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), but said the United Nations still needed to define the operation.
"We already have the command (of UNIFIL) and we are ready to continue to do this until next February including for the enlarged UNIFIL," she told France 2 television.
<snip>
In New York, Deputy U.N. Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown said France would "be the key to firming up the pledges from other Europeans as well as Muslim countries who have indicated a willingness to join this force."
"We are very much expecting and hoping that France is going to not just express that willingness to lead but be able to offer the specifics in term(s) of how many troops it can deploy."
Alliot-Marie told French television she hoped a large number of European and Muslim countries would take part in the beefed-up U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), but said the United Nations still needed to define the operation.
"We already have the command (of UNIFIL) and we are ready to continue to do this until next February including for the enlarged UNIFIL," she told France 2 television.
<snip>
In New York, Deputy U.N. Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown said France would "be the key to firming up the pledges from other Europeans as well as Muslim countries who have indicated a willingness to join this force."
"We are very much expecting and hoping that France is going to not just express that willingness to lead but be able to offer the specifics in term(s) of how many troops it can deploy."
France has now indicated that it will deploy 200 additional troops to Lebanon (in addition to the 200 it already has there), bring its total commitment to 400 soldiers.
Now perhaps Italy is going to step forward. Weak UN mandate stalls Lebanon peacekeepers
The Lebanese government seems to be a part of the problem, not wanting the authority of UNIFIL to be too broad.
Questions for debate:
What caused France to change its mind? What makes other countries reluctant to send troops in, especially now that the situation seems to have stabilized?
What does this development say about the usefulness of international negotiations?
What does this development say about the state of the United Nations as an agent or facilitator of negotiations?
I think the French are being pretty clear about what changed their mind; the lack of a clear, strong mandate re: the use of force and the parameters of the mission. To be honest, reading the UN resolution (and reading the threads related to it), I share some of those questions and I suspect many folks here do as well. The questions raised by the French FM (do we actively help disarm Hezbollah, do we intercept Israeli incursions) are reasonable and the answers to them are far from obvious and politically loaded (correct me if I'm wrong but Hezbollah has ruled out disarmament, the Lebanese. government has been wishy-washy at best about how far it intends to push them, wording about "defensive action" was left intentionally open-ended and vague). Further complicating this are differences in opinion on potential force contributors, it's interesting to me that, as an example, Germany cites the preservation of Israel as a key goal while Italy cites Israeli raids as a major concern. Leading a mixed force will be impossible unless all contributing members agree on what the mission is and are able and willing to carry it out regardless of their own political interests or leanings.
In the final analysis, however, the largest problem is that there is no real peace to maintain. There is a cease-fire, certainly but a state of hostility still remains between the three actors (Israel, Lebanon, Hezbollah). The cease-fire agreement was intentionally vague as the main goal of the folks pushing it was to end the shooting (for whatever reason), not to provide long-term solutions regarding Hezbollah, Israel's defence needs, etc. Frankly, I'm shocked that anyone is willing to send troops such a situation.
Having written all this, I'm not sure these issues are a commentary on the UN or international cooperation generally. The problems in the ME seem near intractable. Negotiations are, at heart, always a matter of compromise and compromise is impossible in zero-sum and/or highly emotional situations. No negotiator could expect to create a "resolution" beyond getting folks to stop shooting for a while and that was achieved.
To answer your questions directly:
The lack of clear mandate as well as the fact that the situation is not stable.
Nothing in particular. It does, however, show that negotiations generally have limits and depend on the participants for success. It also shows that we may be a bit naive in that we expect to negotiate a settlement when one of the parties is dedicated to the eradication of the other as an entity.
That depends. If the UN was simply attempting to stop the shooting, then they were a reasonably effective agent, creating a vague yet agreeable resolution that allowed each side to step back from active hostilities. If they believed they were making a stable peace agreement, then they were ineffective.
In the final analysis, however, the largest problem is that there is no real peace to maintain. There is a cease-fire, certainly but a state of hostility still remains between the three actors (Israel, Lebanon, Hezbollah). The cease-fire agreement was intentionally vague as the main goal of the folks pushing it was to end the shooting (for whatever reason), not to provide long-term solutions regarding Hezbollah, Israel's defence needs, etc. Frankly, I'm shocked that anyone is willing to send troops such a situation.
Having written all this, I'm not sure these issues are a commentary on the UN or international cooperation generally. The problems in the ME seem near intractable. Negotiations are, at heart, always a matter of compromise and compromise is impossible in zero-sum and/or highly emotional situations. No negotiator could expect to create a "resolution" beyond getting folks to stop shooting for a while and that was achieved.
To answer your questions directly:
QUOTE
What caused France to change its mind? What makes other countries reluctant to send troops in, especially now that the situation seems to have stabilized?
The lack of clear mandate as well as the fact that the situation is not stable.
QUOTE
What does this development say about the usefulness of international negotiations?
Nothing in particular. It does, however, show that negotiations generally have limits and depend on the participants for success. It also shows that we may be a bit naive in that we expect to negotiate a settlement when one of the parties is dedicated to the eradication of the other as an entity.
QUOTE
What does this development say about the state of the United Nations as an agent or facilitator of negotiations?
That depends. If the UN was simply attempting to stop the shooting, then they were a reasonably effective agent, creating a vague yet agreeable resolution that allowed each side to step back from active hostilities. If they believed they were making a stable peace agreement, then they were ineffective.
What caused France to change its mind?
They didn't - as you quoted
As TheCook points out, 1701 doesn't really qualify as a clear mandate - there's no real definition of what the UN Force can or cannot do, nor any indication of how long it might be required, no measure of success, no delineation of powers, rules of engagement, etc. You know, the kinds of things that the French found wanting in the UN resolutions put forward by the US and UK in the build-up to the Iraq war.
What makes other countries reluctant to send troops in, especially now that the situation seems to have stabilized?
Well, the US, Israel, Syria, Iran and UK and other powers with troops already deployed in the Middle East and/or ulterior motives in the Israeli/Hizbollah stand-off are clearly not sensibly placed to provide any troops. African nations are already kept pretty busy in UN operations in Africa. South America, Asia and continental Europe need to provide the troops, but first there needs to be further clarification on the mandate & powers that has put off the French.
The US and UK might be rolling their eyes that the FRench are all talk and no action, but then us action oriented Anglo-Saxons went into Afghanistan and Iraq without much of an idea of mandate or powers, and those conflicts are working out just dandy for us, aren't they?
Which, I think, is another reason other nations are, let's say, circumspect in sending in troops to Southern Lebanon; they have a permanent and constant reminder on their 24 hour news channels of what can happen when you send in troops without clear objectives, mandates, etc.
What does this development say about the usefulness of international negotiations?
They work best when they don't finish before the details are decided.
What does this development say about the state of the United Nations as an agent or facilitator of negotiations?
Honestly? That the veto powers of permanent UNSC members have outlived their usefulness. We should move to unanimity among recognised democracies (even I'm not daft enough to think it would be sensible to give North Korea or Nepal the same weight as the USA or Japan. India gets to play. China doesn't. Of course, since China has a veto and would lose it, they'll never go for it. And since the USA wouldn't be able to stop any motion in it's tracks that goes against its interests, no matter how well-intentioned or beneficial to the rest of the world, the US wouldn't want such reform either.
Not to mention that the UN as is contains more than average levels of corruption and incompetence, but that's another story.
In principle, the world desperately needs a functional and effective UN now more than ever, but because none of it's officials are elected and so owe allegiances to national governments and not to the nations themselves, the current formation is not well suited to such matters.
It's not a complete dead loss - UN agencies such as UNESCO and the WHO can and do achieve real successes - so, unlike many US critics, I don't think it should be scrapped. But I do think it needs root and branch reform, and I'm unsure how to achieve it in practice.
***STOP PRESS***
France ups pledge to 2,000 troops
Just after I first put up this post, the 8.00 pm radio news on the BBC broke this story. The radio bulletin also added words to the effect that the French government had resceived assurances and clarifications form the UN and other interested parties that mad eit think it could now commit greater forces. Quite what these assurances are remains to be seen - the story will likely fill in more details in the next few hours.
2,000 troops is still less than the 5,000 first mooted, but between the French and the Italians, we now have a third of the 15,000 the UN says it needs. And if I was Italy, I'd be saying to France that if they wwant to lead the deployment, they'll have to commit more troops than me, but that's nitpicking.
Now France has moved, I predict other European countries, and others around the world, will commit their troops too. We'll have to wait and see, though.
They didn't - as you quoted
QUOTE(my emphasis)
France is willing to lead a new U.N. force in Lebanon at least until February, so long as it is given a clear mandate and sufficient powers, Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said on Wednesday.
As TheCook points out, 1701 doesn't really qualify as a clear mandate - there's no real definition of what the UN Force can or cannot do, nor any indication of how long it might be required, no measure of success, no delineation of powers, rules of engagement, etc. You know, the kinds of things that the French found wanting in the UN resolutions put forward by the US and UK in the build-up to the Iraq war.
What makes other countries reluctant to send troops in, especially now that the situation seems to have stabilized?
Well, the US, Israel, Syria, Iran and UK and other powers with troops already deployed in the Middle East and/or ulterior motives in the Israeli/Hizbollah stand-off are clearly not sensibly placed to provide any troops. African nations are already kept pretty busy in UN operations in Africa. South America, Asia and continental Europe need to provide the troops, but first there needs to be further clarification on the mandate & powers that has put off the French.
The US and UK might be rolling their eyes that the FRench are all talk and no action, but then us action oriented Anglo-Saxons went into Afghanistan and Iraq without much of an idea of mandate or powers, and those conflicts are working out just dandy for us, aren't they?
Which, I think, is another reason other nations are, let's say, circumspect in sending in troops to Southern Lebanon; they have a permanent and constant reminder on their 24 hour news channels of what can happen when you send in troops without clear objectives, mandates, etc.
What does this development say about the usefulness of international negotiations?
They work best when they don't finish before the details are decided.
What does this development say about the state of the United Nations as an agent or facilitator of negotiations?
Honestly? That the veto powers of permanent UNSC members have outlived their usefulness. We should move to unanimity among recognised democracies (even I'm not daft enough to think it would be sensible to give North Korea or Nepal the same weight as the USA or Japan. India gets to play. China doesn't. Of course, since China has a veto and would lose it, they'll never go for it. And since the USA wouldn't be able to stop any motion in it's tracks that goes against its interests, no matter how well-intentioned or beneficial to the rest of the world, the US wouldn't want such reform either.
Not to mention that the UN as is contains more than average levels of corruption and incompetence, but that's another story.
In principle, the world desperately needs a functional and effective UN now more than ever, but because none of it's officials are elected and so owe allegiances to national governments and not to the nations themselves, the current formation is not well suited to such matters.
It's not a complete dead loss - UN agencies such as UNESCO and the WHO can and do achieve real successes - so, unlike many US critics, I don't think it should be scrapped. But I do think it needs root and branch reform, and I'm unsure how to achieve it in practice.
***STOP PRESS***
France ups pledge to 2,000 troops
Just after I first put up this post, the 8.00 pm radio news on the BBC broke this story. The radio bulletin also added words to the effect that the French government had resceived assurances and clarifications form the UN and other interested parties that mad eit think it could now commit greater forces. Quite what these assurances are remains to be seen - the story will likely fill in more details in the next few hours.
2,000 troops is still less than the 5,000 first mooted, but between the French and the Italians, we now have a third of the 15,000 the UN says it needs. And if I was Italy, I'd be saying to France that if they wwant to lead the deployment, they'll have to commit more troops than me, but that's nitpicking.
Now France has moved, I predict other European countries, and others around the world, will commit their troops too. We'll have to wait and see, though.
I'll interject this news release I just read. Apparently the French are going to commit 2,000 total troops afterall, upon receiving clearer rules of engagement (Italian participation probably helped persuade them as well).
QUOTE
However, President Jacques Chirac said France decided to dispatch many more troops after winning assurances from the U.N. that the troops would be able to defend themselves fully if they came under attack and could use force to protect civilians.
"Two thousand French troops will thus be placed under the United Nations in Lebanon. France is ready, if the United Nations wishes, to continue commanding this force," Chirac said in a televised address.
"Two thousand French troops will thus be placed under the United Nations in Lebanon. France is ready, if the United Nations wishes, to continue commanding this force," Chirac said in a televised address.
Updating this further, EU pledges half of 15,000 strong force
The breakdown by country of force commitments is interesting:
France - leadership and 2,000 troops
Italy - 2,000 - 3,000 troops
Bangladesh - two battalions (up to 2,000 troops)
Malaysia - one battalion
Spain - one mechanised battalion
Indonesia - one battalion, an engineering company
Nepal - one battalion
Denmark - at least two ships
Poland - 500 troops
Finland - 250 troops
Belgium - 302 troops, later rising to 392
Germany - maritime and border patrols but no combat troops
Norway - 100 soldiers
I'm partly surprised that the German commitment is so small, but I guess there might still be some worries over German troops being posted into a situation where they might conceivably have to clash with Israelis.
What's more interesting to me is the absence of Chinese, Russian, Indian or Japanese troops, or of any suggestion that they might consider sending them. They might show up later; half the force is found, but the other half will presumably have to come from somewhere else.
In light of this I'd like to modify two of my previous replies:
What does this development say about the usefulness of international negotiations?
What does this development say about the state of the United Nations as an agent or facilitator of negotiations?
They work, if you wait long enough.
Given that Israel and Hizbollah have maintained their ceasefire, no real harm has been done by the delay. Had that not been the case, or if the ceasefire collapses before the full UN contingent is deployed, there may have been, or still be, cause for criticism.
However, other than sluggishness, I don't see any particular reason for scorn of either France or the UN on this issue at the moment.
What do you think Amlord? How would you have answered your own questions before the new announcements, and would you answers be different now?
The breakdown by country of force commitments is interesting:
France - leadership and 2,000 troops
Italy - 2,000 - 3,000 troops
Bangladesh - two battalions (up to 2,000 troops)
Malaysia - one battalion
Spain - one mechanised battalion
Indonesia - one battalion, an engineering company
Nepal - one battalion
Denmark - at least two ships
Poland - 500 troops
Finland - 250 troops
Belgium - 302 troops, later rising to 392
Germany - maritime and border patrols but no combat troops
Norway - 100 soldiers
I'm partly surprised that the German commitment is so small, but I guess there might still be some worries over German troops being posted into a situation where they might conceivably have to clash with Israelis.
What's more interesting to me is the absence of Chinese, Russian, Indian or Japanese troops, or of any suggestion that they might consider sending them. They might show up later; half the force is found, but the other half will presumably have to come from somewhere else.
In light of this I'd like to modify two of my previous replies:
What does this development say about the usefulness of international negotiations?
What does this development say about the state of the United Nations as an agent or facilitator of negotiations?
They work, if you wait long enough.
Given that Israel and Hizbollah have maintained their ceasefire, no real harm has been done by the delay. Had that not been the case, or if the ceasefire collapses before the full UN contingent is deployed, there may have been, or still be, cause for criticism.
However, other than sluggishness, I don't see any particular reason for scorn of either France or the UN on this issue at the moment.
What do you think Amlord? How would you have answered your own questions before the new announcements, and would you answers be different now?
Ask and you shall receive... 
What does this development say about the usefulness of international negotiations?
They are useful, but only when the negotiating parties follow through with their commitments. This deal was brokered by the US originally and France (and the Arab League) objected. It was modified to mollify the French. Then the French balked that it was too vague. France agreed to take the lead when the deal was finalized.
I'm not sure what the exact reason for the delay and now the return to the plan was from the French point of view. The French nearly caused the collapse of the entire deal. Since the US was certainly not going to send troops to Lebanon, we needed France (or Italy or some other legitimate player) to step in.
I'm glad they changed their mind (since, to my knowledge, the mandate hasn't changed).
What does this development say about the state of the United Nations as an agent or facilitator of negotiations?
I still think it is dubious at best. Even now, this amounts to a multi-national deal and could have been handled outside of the UN structure. What benefit did the UN route have to finalizing this deal? 75% of the forces are NATO. Why not have a NATO commander?
What does this development say about the usefulness of international negotiations?
They are useful, but only when the negotiating parties follow through with their commitments. This deal was brokered by the US originally and France (and the Arab League) objected. It was modified to mollify the French. Then the French balked that it was too vague. France agreed to take the lead when the deal was finalized.
I'm not sure what the exact reason for the delay and now the return to the plan was from the French point of view. The French nearly caused the collapse of the entire deal. Since the US was certainly not going to send troops to Lebanon, we needed France (or Italy or some other legitimate player) to step in.
I'm glad they changed their mind (since, to my knowledge, the mandate hasn't changed).
What does this development say about the state of the United Nations as an agent or facilitator of negotiations?
I still think it is dubious at best. Even now, this amounts to a multi-national deal and could have been handled outside of the UN structure. What benefit did the UN route have to finalizing this deal? 75% of the forces are NATO. Why not have a NATO commander?
What caused France to change its mind? What makes other countries reluctant to send troops in, especially now that the situation seems to have stabilized?
They are useless? They have just raised the number to 2000.
Countries are reluctant to send in troops because France and others refuse to agree on tough ROE (Rules of Engagement) that would allow the troops to actually ENFORCE the regulation and DISARM by FORCE if necessary Hezbollah.
What does this development say about the usefulness of international negotiations?
It tell us a lot. The UN resolutions against Iraq failed for the same reason. France, Russia and others refused to put teeth in them. Failing to meet resolutions had NO down side and Iraq was just waiting it out until it’s buddies like France go the UN to drop them.
What does this development say about the state of the United Nations as an agent or facilitator of negotiations?
This will clearly show how worthless this organization is and how little anyone can count on the UN to defend against aggression no matter how blatant. IMO this was one of the objectives of the Israeli invasion. Now thousands more “UN Troops” charged (as before) with disarming Hezbollah will fail to get the job done. The magnitude of this failure will be missed by no one.
They are useless? They have just raised the number to 2000.
Countries are reluctant to send in troops because France and others refuse to agree on tough ROE (Rules of Engagement) that would allow the troops to actually ENFORCE the regulation and DISARM by FORCE if necessary Hezbollah.
What does this development say about the usefulness of international negotiations?
It tell us a lot. The UN resolutions against Iraq failed for the same reason. France, Russia and others refused to put teeth in them. Failing to meet resolutions had NO down side and Iraq was just waiting it out until it’s buddies like France go the UN to drop them.
What does this development say about the state of the United Nations as an agent or facilitator of negotiations?
This will clearly show how worthless this organization is and how little anyone can count on the UN to defend against aggression no matter how blatant. IMO this was one of the objectives of the Israeli invasion. Now thousands more “UN Troops” charged (as before) with disarming Hezbollah will fail to get the job done. The magnitude of this failure will be missed by no one.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Aug 25 2006, 04:16 PM) 
Even now, this amounts to a multi-national deal and could have been handled outside of the UN structure. What benefit did the UN route have to finalizing this deal? 75% of the forces are NATO. Why not have a NATO commander?
Because NATO is designed for collective defense, not peacekeeping. As such, it is inherently divisive, whereas the UN isn't (at least not by intent). I'd say that as NATO expands to include the former Soviet Block countries it needs to reevaluate its purpose and usefullness, too.
Per the questions, I think it's a bit early to tell. I don't see any BETTER alternative to the UN for these sorts of missions. That's not to say they have a great track record, or I have high hopes. What is the better alternative? I think this is actually the sort of thing the UN was at least designed to do...intervene between countries at war, rather than civil wars within countries.
Edited: I'll also add that I believe the real test of metal for the UN is not Lebanon and the current peacekeeping force, but what it intends to do about things like this.
QUOTE(Ted @ Aug 26 2006, 02:50 AM)
They are useless? They have just raised the number to 2000.
Countries are reluctant to send in troops because France and others refuse to agree on tough ROE (Rules of Engagement) that would allow the troops to actually ENFORCE the regulation and DISARM by FORCE if necessary Hezbollah.
Good heavens, Ted insulting France? How novel and unexpected!
Actually, from everything I have read, the exact opposite of what you said is true, France is reluctant to commit more troops BECAUSE they did not receive a sufficiently strong mandate to enforce the cease-fire while protecting themselves.
QUOTE
It tell us a lot. The UN resolutions against Iraq failed for the same reason. France, Russia and others refused to put teeth in them. Failing to meet resolutions had NO down side and Iraq was just waiting it out until it’s buddies like France go the UN to drop them.
So you have continued to wildly assert for years now. However the main problem with the UN resoluteions on Iraq (and there were many problems) was the fact that the US never considered the UN as an actual body of decision makers, but rather a body meant to carry out the express wish of Bush Jr. As I recall the primary objection of the UN was that everyone (UN inspectors first and foremost) felt that inspections for these phantom WMD were ongoing and needed more time, and that war was at the time not yet necessary. Were they wrong?
QUOTE
This will clearly show how worthless this organization is and how little anyone can count on the UN to defend against aggression no matter how blatant. IMO this was one of the objectives of the Israeli invasion. Now thousands more “UN Troops” charged (as before) with disarming Hezbollah will fail to get the job done.
Good heavens, Ted insulting the UN? How novel and unexpected!
As I recall, the LAST time a multinational force was in Lebanon, they pulled out because the US unilaterally withdrew its forces under Reagan, despite the fact that the US troops (or at least, the general in command) on the ground wanted to stay just with an effective mandate.
Personally, I don't know if the UN force will be sucessfull, it may well, it may not. This is after all an extremely difficult mission, in particular if Hezbollah does not play along. I however, unlike you, will not spend my time wringing my hands in gleeful anticipation of their failure.
What caused France to change its mind? What makes other countries reluctant to send troops in, especially now that the situation seems to have stabilized?
Poor rules of engagement- they don't want to "pull a GW" and do this all incompetent like. No one wants this to be screwed up as badly as GW has screwed up the ME at this time- everyone is rightfully cautious after the way the US has bolloxed up everything- heck, I would be too- my first response would be "is this plan anything like the way the US does it, and if it is, how do we get out of it?"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060825/ap_on_...st_peacekeepers
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said Annan gave guarantees for the safety of European troops and on rules of engagement, and that France wanted an arms-free "exclusion zone" in south Lebanon.
"We think the best solution for disarming Hezbollah is to make an exclusion zone with the retreat of the Israeli army on one side and the deployment of the Lebanese army on the other, reinforced by the U.N. troops," he said.
"Our objective is clear, to disarm Hezbollah," Douste-Blazy said, but added that military force was not the answer. "The only solution is to have a political solution."
Annan said Hezbollah could not be disarmed by force.
"The troops are not going there to disarm Hezbollah, let's be clear on that," he said
Pretty much the opposite of what Ted said
What does this development say about the usefulness of international negotiations?
The less someone like Condi, Rove, Bolton and GW interfere, the better off the whole world is likely to be? We have 0 credibility in this area, and as one high official described the GW admin, after meeting with them "Crap"
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1219716.ece
Bush is crap, says Prescott
So as long as GW has little to no say about anything in the ME, it will probably improve, otherwise, GW will be able to show once again his total lack of competence.
In the development of international negotiations, lack of competence by a major player is a very, very big monkey wrench in the works- and when we have one so very, very SPECTACULARLY dumb as this admin, it doesn't reflect badly on Europe, it reflects badly on us.
I seriously think Clinton, Kerry or a 16 year old deaf mute with the IQ of a Zuchini could have ended this in a very short time if there was no GW to screw it up!
What does this development say about the state of the United Nations as an agent or facilitator of negotiations
Nothing really- we need to place blame squarely on this admin for pretty much everything bad in the ME since our invasion of Iraq. It has clearly caused a cascade and dominoe effect of extremism due to GW's actions, and we are just trying to blame those trying to put band-aides on the outcome of his incompetance.
Poor rules of engagement- they don't want to "pull a GW" and do this all incompetent like. No one wants this to be screwed up as badly as GW has screwed up the ME at this time- everyone is rightfully cautious after the way the US has bolloxed up everything- heck, I would be too- my first response would be "is this plan anything like the way the US does it, and if it is, how do we get out of it?"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060825/ap_on_...st_peacekeepers
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said Annan gave guarantees for the safety of European troops and on rules of engagement, and that France wanted an arms-free "exclusion zone" in south Lebanon.
"We think the best solution for disarming Hezbollah is to make an exclusion zone with the retreat of the Israeli army on one side and the deployment of the Lebanese army on the other, reinforced by the U.N. troops," he said.
"Our objective is clear, to disarm Hezbollah," Douste-Blazy said, but added that military force was not the answer. "The only solution is to have a political solution."
Annan said Hezbollah could not be disarmed by force.
"The troops are not going there to disarm Hezbollah, let's be clear on that," he said
Pretty much the opposite of what Ted said
What does this development say about the usefulness of international negotiations?
The less someone like Condi, Rove, Bolton and GW interfere, the better off the whole world is likely to be? We have 0 credibility in this area, and as one high official described the GW admin, after meeting with them "Crap"
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1219716.ece
Bush is crap, says Prescott
So as long as GW has little to no say about anything in the ME, it will probably improve, otherwise, GW will be able to show once again his total lack of competence.
In the development of international negotiations, lack of competence by a major player is a very, very big monkey wrench in the works- and when we have one so very, very SPECTACULARLY dumb as this admin, it doesn't reflect badly on Europe, it reflects badly on us.
I seriously think Clinton, Kerry or a 16 year old deaf mute with the IQ of a Zuchini could have ended this in a very short time if there was no GW to screw it up!
What does this development say about the state of the United Nations as an agent or facilitator of negotiations
Nothing really- we need to place blame squarely on this admin for pretty much everything bad in the ME since our invasion of Iraq. It has clearly caused a cascade and dominoe effect of extremism due to GW's actions, and we are just trying to blame those trying to put band-aides on the outcome of his incompetance.
To paraphrase Vermillion:
Good heavens, Cruising Ram insulting George W. Bush? How novel and unexpected!
Tell me, how is Bush responsible for "screwing this up" this time? It seems like we stayed out of it for the most part. If anything, it was the US that brought Israel to accept this cease fire--which I agree is probably screwing things up or will in the long term.
As for Prescott's criticism of Bush, he denies saying it.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0817-04.htm
(I believe that the Commondreams article is the full text of the same one you posted.)
The French situation is all about the rules of engagement, but the way it came about is funny. It was the French that reworded 1701 to remove aggressive language regarding the mission of the UNIFIL. Then they balked at sending troops into such an ambiguous situation. We can only assume that it was the French military that put the brakes on before the politicians sent their "boys" into a quagmire.
Good heavens, Cruising Ram insulting George W. Bush? How novel and unexpected!
Tell me, how is Bush responsible for "screwing this up" this time? It seems like we stayed out of it for the most part. If anything, it was the US that brought Israel to accept this cease fire--which I agree is probably screwing things up or will in the long term.
As for Prescott's criticism of Bush, he denies saying it.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0817-04.htm
QUOTE
Last night, an official from the Deputy Prime Minister's office said: " These discussions are intended to be private and remain within the four walls. They are private so that there may be frank discussions."
And today Mr Prescott issued a statement in which he said: "This is an inaccurate report of a private conversation and it is not my view.
And today Mr Prescott issued a statement in which he said: "This is an inaccurate report of a private conversation and it is not my view.
(I believe that the Commondreams article is the full text of the same one you posted.)
The French situation is all about the rules of engagement, but the way it came about is funny. It was the French that reworded 1701 to remove aggressive language regarding the mission of the UNIFIL. Then they balked at sending troops into such an ambiguous situation. We can only assume that it was the French military that put the brakes on before the politicians sent their "boys" into a quagmire.
QUOTE(Vermillion @ Aug 27 2006, 10:39 AM)
Actually, from everything I have read, the exact opposite of what you said is true, France is reluctant to commit more troops BECAUSE they did not receive a sufficiently strong mandate to enforce the cease-fire while protecting themselves.
This is what I have read as well. Rather than place any criticism on France, I think it is worth noting that this is exactly what the US has constantly complained about when pressured to commit troops to UN actions. So, I don't think this is an issue about France, it is an issue about UN mandates.h
QUOTE
MP
Because NATO is designed for collective defense, not peacekeeping. As such, it is inherently divisive, whereas the UN isn't (at least not by intent). I'd say that as NATO expands to include the former Soviet Block countries it needs to reevaluate its purpose and usefulness, too.
Because NATO is designed for collective defense, not peacekeeping. As such, it is inherently divisive, whereas the UN isn't (at least not by intent). I'd say that as NATO expands to include the former Soviet Block countries it needs to reevaluate its purpose and usefulness, too.
What is happening in Afghanistan is not “peace keeping” by any means. The Taliban have retreated but are far from dead. Word has it they are building up substantial forces in the Pakistani “no mans land” and are attacking in larger numbers. And as in Iraq terrorists are drawn there by the prospect of killing Americans or infidels from the west in general.
Lets face it the UN is worthless in any kind of conflict as we will see in Lebanon soon.
QUOTE
Vermillion
So you have continued to wildly assert for years now. However the main problem with the UN resolutions on Iraq (and there were many problems) was the fact that the US never considered the UN as an actual body of decision makers, but rather a body meant to carry out the express wish of Bush Jr. As I recall the primary objection of the UN was that everyone (UN inspectors first and foremost) felt that inspections for these phantom WMD were ongoing and needed more time, and that war was at the time not yet necessary. Were they wrong?
So you have continued to wildly assert for years now. However the main problem with the UN resolutions on Iraq (and there were many problems) was the fact that the US never considered the UN as an actual body of decision makers, but rather a body meant to carry out the express wish of Bush Jr. As I recall the primary objection of the UN was that everyone (UN inspectors first and foremost) felt that inspections for these phantom WMD were ongoing and needed more time, and that war was at the time not yet necessary. Were they wrong?
The “resolutions” were voted on and agreed to. Yes we wanted a Resolution with teeth rather than the former Resolutions but 1441 was agreed to. Of course the France and Russians had problems with words like “grave consequences” or any threat to actually ‘enforce” anything. The idea sir was that the Iraqi government was to either bring out the WMD they admitted to having or prove they were destroyed. They did neither and while I disagree with Bush for going in without knowing where they were hidden I do not think waiting another 10 years for “inspections to work” was the answer.
QUOTE
As I recall, the LAST time a multinational force was in Lebanon, they pulled out because the US unilaterally withdrew its forces under Reagan, despite the fact that the US troops (or at least, the general in command) on the ground wanted to stay just with an effective mandate.
If you remember we ‘were” the main force and lets also remember that the UN had 4,000 men their ever since. They did a great job watching the thousands of missiles come in. Koffi met with Assad this week. The UN proposed putting troops on the Syrian border. Assad said no way and there is every indication the UN will not do it. Rumor in Lebanon has it the arms convoys from Syria are moving across the border as we speak.
The trick is to get the UN to issue ROE that allow their troops to confront Hezbollah. I will bet it never happens.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Aug 24 2006, 08:22 AM)
The recent Israeli-Hezbollah shoot out was ended (at least temporarily) when both sides agreed in principle to the terms of UN Resolution 1701.
Under the deal, brokered primarily by France and the United States, 15,000 UN peacekeepers would be deployed to Southern Lebanon to assist the Lebanese army in keeping the peace.
France agreed to "take the lead" in the multi-national force to be deployed to Lebanon. Source: Reuters
QUOTE
France is willing to lead a new U.N. force in Lebanon at least until February, so long as it is given a clear mandate and sufficient powers, Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said on Wednesday.
Alliot-Marie told French television she hoped a large number of European and Muslim countries would take part in the beefed-up U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), but said the United Nations still needed to define the operation.
"We already have the command (of UNIFIL) and we are ready to continue to do this until next February including for the enlarged UNIFIL," she told France 2 television.
<snip>
In New York, Deputy U.N. Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown said France would "be the key to firming up the pledges from other Europeans as well as Muslim countries who have indicated a willingness to join this force."
"We are very much expecting and hoping that France is going to not just express that willingness to lead but be able to offer the specifics in term(s) of how many troops it can deploy."
Alliot-Marie told French television she hoped a large number of European and Muslim countries would take part in the beefed-up U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), but said the United Nations still needed to define the operation.
"We already have the command (of UNIFIL) and we are ready to continue to do this until next February including for the enlarged UNIFIL," she told France 2 television.
<snip>
In New York, Deputy U.N. Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown said France would "be the key to firming up the pledges from other Europeans as well as Muslim countries who have indicated a willingness to join this force."
"We are very much expecting and hoping that France is going to not just express that willingness to lead but be able to offer the specifics in term(s) of how many troops it can deploy."
France has now indicated that it will deploy 200 additional troops to Lebanon (in addition to the 200 it already has there), bring its total commitment to 400 soldiers.
Now perhaps Italy is going to step forward. Weak UN mandate stalls Lebanon peacekeepers
The Lebanese government seems to be a part of the problem, not wanting the authority of UNIFIL to be too broad.
Questions for debate:
What caused France to change its mind? What makes other countries reluctant to send troops in, especially now that the situation seems to have stabilized?
What does this development say about the usefulness of international negotiations?
What does this development say about the state of the United Nations as an agent or facilitator of negotiations?
Clearly, the inability of the UN to provide a definite reason for being there along with a time line of when France can withdraw it's troops has caused the change of mind. The Middle East is a quagmire which drains nations of funds as France has seen has happened to Russia and the US. Why would it want to commit to destroying its economy? I think France has the right idea.
The MIddle East is never stable and as long as Israel is bent on taking land from the Arabs, will never BE stable....as long as the US meddles into the affairs of this region and sets up puppet governments it will never BE stable.
International negotiations must be fair, clear and precise. These negotiations were not.
I think the United Nations is good as a mediator. I think the US deliberately made the negotiations muddy so as to keep other nations in the region indefinitely.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.