PSC in darfur debate

[vinny_121_ND]

hey mp.net members. I have a political debate coming up whether or not it's within reason to send in a PSC into darfur to restore order and bring the janjaweed to justice.

My arguing points are
1) UN is too weak, and too slow to mobilize a force
2) UN can't bring anyone to justice due to lack of physical evidence
3) PSC is rapid response, and will take action much more quickly.

Counter arguments:
1) PSC requires money, for profit, not for moral superiority.
2) PSC's is not an occupation force. It won't be there forever.
3) Who's going to pay for all this?

These are points to bring up, not really well written yet, but would like some constructive criticism.

[Laworkerbee]

This point

2) UN can't bring anyone to justice due to lack of physical evidence

Is flawed and most likely will be taken apart.

[He219]

Bring in the Swiss Guard.
At least they'll fight for the Vatican and no false prophets/profits.
:p

[Laworkerbee]

Also I would suggest reading up on Executive Outcomes operations in Africa, they were much more effective and cost effective than the blue helmets that replaced them.

1) PSC requires money, for profit, not for moral superiority.

[playtym]

Bring in the Swiss Guard.
At least they'll fight for the Vatican and no false prophets/profits.
:p

But then everyone would die from AIDS as they'd impose a strict "no birth control" regime. p-)

[Ironsight06]

1) PSC requires money, for profit, not for moral superiority.
PSC's are more cost-efficient than the military.


2) PSC's is not an occupation force. It won't be there forever.
Neither will the UN.


3) Who's going to pay for all this?
The UN just like they have to pay for blue helmets.

[vinny_121_ND]

another two big problem
1) who's going to take responsibility if something goes wrong?
2) having people hired with guns on the ground may only contribute to the violence, not stop it.

the UN has rejected the idea of PSC's to intervene, but somebody has to ask, is it better to do nothing than to hire somebody else to maintain security until a peacekeeping force can be mobilized?

[playtym]

the UN has rejected the idea of PSC's to intervene, but somebody has to ask, is it better to do nothing than to hire somebody else to maintain security until a peacekeeping force can be mobilized?

They'll sit on their hands and do **** all about it, just like they did with Rwanda, all the while condeming the use of PSC's such as Executive Outcomes who singlehandedly sorted out the **** in Sierra Leone.

After all, this is Africa, nobody cares what happens here.

[Ironsight06]

another two big problem
1) who's going to take responsibility if something goes wrong?
2) having people hired with guns on the ground may only contribute to the violence, not stop it.

the UN has rejected the idea of PSC's to intervene, but somebody has to ask, is it better to do nothing than to hire somebody else to maintain security until a peacekeeping force can be mobilized?
Do some research. Blue helmets are a UN-hired peacekeeping force. Whether they are military or civilians, eventually it comes down to the same thing. I couldn't think of any argument against it.

The UN offers contributing nations $1000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USD) per soldier per month, plus equipment. This can be a significant source of revenue for a developing country. By providing important training and equipment for the soldiers as well as salaries, UN peacekeeping missions allow them to maintain larger armies than they otherwise could.

[vinny_121_ND]

I'm doing the research now. I just needed a direction to go on. I'd rather look foolish now than in front of 200 people.

[Sato]

Firstly UN missions need to be sanctioned by the country in wich they operate, therefore in order to avoid violating the country's (in this case Sudan)sovereignty any PSC will need approval of the country's gouvernment and will have to operate with more or less the same constraints as a UN mission.

Secondly, the UN's main function is to provide humanitarian assistance, stability and security in the aftermath of a conflict or at least form a buffer. NATO and other ad hoc alliances will, in extreme cases, put an end to armed conflict. Thus I think it's wrong to assume that a PSC and the UN will have the same tasks to begin with.

If you mean by "bring the Janjaweed to justice" is to trial them on account of ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity, obviously a PSC cannot do that.

[M1A2U2]

Firstly UN missions need to be sanctioned by the country in wich they operate, therefore in order to avoid violating the country's (in this case Sudan)sovereignty any PSC will need approval of the country's gouvernment and will have to operate with more or less the same constraints as a UN mission.
.

No under chapter 7 of the UN Charter the Secretay General can overrule the host country and deploy without its consent if it is in the interest of international peace and security i.e. genocide.

[Sato]

No under chapter 7 of the UN Charter the Secretay General can overrule the host country and deploy without its consent if it is in the interest of international peace and security i.e. genocide.

You're right, I stand corrected.

Yet the security council has to vote on the "application of enforcement measures" which, in the case of Sudan, is unlikely since China has a veto-right in the security council.


Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but the principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII
The UN charter (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/)

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

The problem is not the UN. Get that through your thick ****ing skulls.

The problem is that lack of will power by the countries in the security council. Especially the ones with VETO power. Unless Sudan start directly effecting a security council member nothing will be done. Even if it does the threat of veto more then stops any idea of intervention.

China has good relations with Sudan so forget about.

Stop laying the blame on the UN ffs. It's sovereign nations that are responsible not the UN. The Secretary General can order as much as he likes. But if a nation doesn't want to do anything it wont.

[vinny_121_ND]

Well, why is China even on the security council? They have brutal human rights records.

[Sato]

Well, why is China even on the security council? They have brutal human rights records.

Dates back to WWII

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_the_United_Nations