My answer to Why do UN peace keeping soldiers didn't interfere in Srebrenica or Rwanda massacres? What'd have happe…
Answer by Desmond Last:
Until we reform and develop the United Nations then the answer to your question is ‘Governments’.
Governments seem unable to work together at the International Level for Peace.
The Security Council of the United Nations has an obligation within International Law to provide a legal unified solution to conflicts. U.N Delegates Passing resolutions which allow a one Nation or limited Coalition solution has,with a very few limited exceptions, not brought peace to any part of the World. Nor will it.
We the People, have been let down by successive Governments who seem unable to look past their individual Interests to a Global Unified Interest.
It does not work. The individual Nation State’s best interest is served by Peace. Peace has to be the priority. It has not been and still is not.
The French Governments own inquiry into the Genocide that occurred in Rwanda concluded that…………….
The Mission considers, given the hardship suffered, including the Belgian contingent of UNAMIR, it appears essential to give our forces when operating in the context of chapter VI of real self-defense capabilities, even fight, to enable them to cope with any change in circumstances. http://www.assemblee-nationale.f…
What this means is Political Autonomy for Peace-keeping Forces.
Once a conflict is identified as being one that will kill civilians lives. One which cannot be resolved. Then the role of the United Nations should be to mandate whatever unified legal force is necessary to bring the conflict to an immediate end.
This is a key component of my own development of the United Nations.
We do not do this. Each Countries contingent of the United Nations answers not to the best interests of Peace, but to the best interests of their government. Which is why the conflicts are never brought to an end.
The French inquiry also noted that The presidential directive of President Bill Clinton (see Annex) on the policy of the United States on the reform of multilateral peace operations, which is published 5 May 1994 but which has been the basis for US decisions adopted a few weeks earlier, establishes a doctrine that the US will militarily and financially support an operation if it is "advancing US national interests." Obviously, this was not the case for Rwanda.
800,000 Rwandan are estimated to have been murdered.
Srebrenica was no different. A Dutch battalion was put in a postilion it had no experience of, by a Government who had never trained or been prepared for such an event. 8000~ Civilians, mostly Muslims were murdered.
World Peace through the ending of conflicts with through a Military solution, is too important for inexperienced Military leadership and inept Politicians. It is also not possible to provide a diplomatic solution from a position of military weakness.
The second part of the question speaks for itself. Faced by overwhelming odds they would have been killed. Their Governments would most likely have told them to withdraw. Note: The Nations of the U.N Security Council (2016) have in total ~3 million military personnel.
Urgent reform of the United Nations is essential if we are too stop the escalation of regional conflicts and the growing support of ISIS and Al Qaeda.
Field Marshall Bernard Law Montgomery who was in charge of British Forces Europe in World War 2 said, you should never commence an attack against the enemy unless you know how to bring it to an end. A lesson that our Governments and some of our Senior Military would do well to remember. The only way we can stop the repeats of Srebrenica, Rwanda, and now Syria, is to allow a Militray response that has no Political affiliation.
Share this:
