Ethnic Conflict – MinBane

Opinion: We are “Concerned” and “Condemns” is losing it’s value [if it had any to begin with]

In a conflict and a war, the international community and on press release(s) or statement(s) the multi-national organizations, troika(s) and diplomat(s) have often written that they are “concerned” or “condemning” what is happening at this stage and time. We have seen that, as much, as we have seen text with “our thought and prayers” after a massacre(s), mass-shooting(s) or extra judicial killing(s).

It is so common and happening after any air-strike(s), death of a humanitarian worker(s) and killing innocent civilian(s). That is occurring on a regular during warfare and within conflict(s). When the violence, the intent and acts of sinister violence is a common action. Therefore, these words and expressions have become “hot-air”.

The diplomat(s) and the other associates, the organization(s) and state(s) should know that it is losing it’s meaning…. When that is all they do. They are concerned about it and condemns it, but what does it do… when they don’t do anything else. Utter and bitter silence. The victims, the deceased or the ones who is caught behind cross-fire doesn’t live on that. Neither does it help anyone who is in the middle of the conflict or in the war-zone.

It is positive that the world and other nations express themselves on the possible war-crime(s) and violations of the Geneva Convention. The acts of war needs to be addressed and not only in this manner. That will not do anything. This will neither silence the guns or the weapons in general. No, the ones acting in the war will not care or be worried. These will only act, if there is sanction(s), clear indication(s) of retribution towards the leadership or the one(s) who is behind it all the devastation.

There is a time and a need for diplomacy. However, often there isn’t more happening. The only thing you hear about is planned meeting(s), committee(s) and more planned text(s). Nevertheless, that is not met with anything more. If so… it is meaningless pleas and understanding the plights of the ones suffering.

The one(s) conducting the war and the conflict are still able to import more weapons, ammunition and military equipment. The armies and militia(s) are able to train, become better and quicker to compete on the battlefield. They are able and allowed to block humanitarian assistance. The one(s) in-charge are not charged or investigated. No, they are not even trying to see what sort of action(s) can be done to the one(s) who profit(s) on the war/conflict. The money is printed and the seller is earning fortunes on the deaths of other(s).

This is why this will not end. Conflict(s) and war(s) will not stop. The act of condemning and being concerned isn’t doing much. Other than creating headlines and sometimes being rebuked by one or the other party within the conflict. However, that will not change anything… or make the one(s) behind it all shaking in their boot(s).

They are just wondering why the UN, multi-national organization or a diplomatic body does this. As it only make press release(s) or statement(s). That isn’t making a difference… and only wave(s) of nothingness. Unless, the ideal(s) are more important than actual impact. That’s how things seem(s) to me. Peace.

Leaked U.S. Concept Note describes the wished changes in the UN Peacekeeping Operation Missions!

The United States delegation to the United Nations have leaked a document on planned discussion for the United Nations Security Council that are to be commenced in next month (April 2017). These notes are clearly setting the course and wish for the goals and ambition of the discussion in the UNSC. This concept note is supposed to be a Peacekeeping Operation Review. That would lead to certain decisions by the Member States and the Council Members.

The reason why the United States delegation to the UNSC about the Peacekeeping operation:

“As of January 31, 2017, there were 99,034 uniformed personnel – including 85,408 troops and 12,786 police – serving in the 16 peacekeeping operations overseen by the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, with an approved budget of $7.87 billion. UN peacekeeping is a vital aspect of the organization. However, a significant number of PKOs have mandates conceived years – in some cases decades – ago that are no longer supported by a political environment conducive to achieving the Council’s aims. It is crucial that missions contribute to increased safety and security, but they can also create a subsidized and unsteady peace that can quickly become a dependency that discourages long-term solutions. The UN becomes trapped in these frozen conflicts and peacekeeping missions that were initially conceived to provide temporary security to allow space for political solutions to take hold instead deploy for years without clear mandates or exit plans”.

Because of the cost, the longevity of the peacekeeping operations as they are creating a vacuum between the government hosts, the peacekeeping mission and the hostile forces. This is a consuming and makes it hard to generate any sort of sustainable peace, as the peacekeepers keeps a buffer and stops the need for a strong foundation of central government and their own security forces. They can always trust on the Blue Helmets to appear when needed and serve the citizens.

The United States has certainly ideas as this is their core idea for the discussion in the UNSC: “We encourage Council Members to consider whether current peacekeeping operations continue to be the best suited mechanisms for meeting the needs of those on the ground and achieving the Council’s political objectives, or if changes are needed”. So the US Mission to the UN wants the Peacekeeping Operations to achieve the political objectives and not be a stalemate operation that keeps the upkeep of unstability and uncertainty in the host nation. That is certainly a noble quest, but with that the UN Peacekeepers need to revise their missions, their mandate and their will of force, as their peacekeeping missions has been done in such diplomatic ways.

The United States delegates outcome of the review:

“While no product is envisioned, we encourage the Council to apply the lessons and methods discussed in this meeting to our regular mandate review process to ensure that conditions still justify the missions and that political processes conceivably lead towards realistic, achievable solutions”.

That this is a quest and wishful thinking for the US mission, the United Nation needs votes and make sure the Members would strike agreement on the possible idea of changing the Peacekeeping Operations. The Blue Helmets are clearly on the loosing end of the stick, as their missions are not seen as fruitful, more like a costly operations not creating the effect and stage the peaceful transition in the host nations.

The UNSC and the Members should be hopeful to change the political climate and use the force to create the peace they are to make. If they weren’t peacekeepers than they wouldn’t be an issue, as if they we’re regular army on a territory, they should keep their citizens safe and the borders. The Peacekeepers has a mandate and mission, still they haven’t always been able to comply with that. Also, they have obligations not only to the United Nations, but to the host nations regime. Therefore, if the UNSC wants a bigger mission or extend their mandate, they still have to negotiate with the host nations.

The US Mission and the UNSC have to work on it and it is about time, as the AMISOM, MUNISCO, UNAMID, UNMISS and MINUSMA, who all should need a change of mandate and level of force if they should be properly creating the peace and make way for the central government. Peace.