Peacekeeping promotes violence

[kandrathe]

"The UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, has warned against sending a UN peacekeeping force to Somalia. He said a UN force should remain the UN's goal, but that deploying now could worsen the country's conflict."

UN head against new Somalia force

Am I the only one that thinks this is upside down thinking? It's much better to let the Somali's rape and kill one another for another decade, then peacekeeping will not lead to conflict. Mostly, because the dozen or so people left will be much easier to police.

He goes on to say, "The insertion of international security forces in Somalia remains a divisive and politicized issue with the potential to exacerbate the conflict." Is that because the UN's reputation is crap, or is it because Islamicists associate the UN with western nations?

[--Pete]

Hi,

Am I the only one that thinks this is upside down thinking?

I'm with you. I especially like "In December, Mr Ban had said few countries were willing to send peacekeeping troops to Somalia, as there was no peace to keep." So if there is unrest then it's better not to send peace-keepers because there might be conflict. But if there's no conflict, then there's no need to send peace-keepers. Catch 22, anyone? A wonderful example of the usefulness and importance of the UN :whistling:

He goes on to say, "The insertion of international security forces in Somalia remains a divisive and politicized issue with the potential to exacerbate the conflict." Is that because the UN's reputation is crap, or is it because Islamicists associate the UN with western nations?

Why does it have to be one or the other? Seems like both apply.

What I'd like to know is where is the remaining 140m euros are coming from. The African Union seems to be tapped out (with "4,300 peacekeepers from an intended 8,000", they don't seem to be able to meet the goals they set for themselves).

But all this is moot. Where are they going to find "6,000-strong national security force and police force of 10,000 officers." that aren't the henchmen of one or another of the warlords? The best I can see coming out of these efforts is setting up yet another dictator. That might be preferable to the status quo.

--Pete

[Jester]

Do you think it would not exacerbate the violence to have UN peacekeepers on the ground? They are hated in Somalia. They were a rallying point for warlords back in the '90s; why would today be different?

The peacekeepers are not the UN army. If their presence creates violence, rather than prevents it, they should not be there.

-Jester

[Tris]

Death solves all problems ... no man, no problem - Joseph Stalin

Peace is easy when your enemy is dead:)

[Jester]

Death solves all problems ... no man, no problem - Joseph Stalin

Putting on my usual quote police cap, that quote is fictionalized, coming from the book Children of the Arbat, by Anatoly Rybakov.

-Jester

[Kevin]

Hi,
I'm with you. I especially like "In December, Mr Ban had said few countries were willing to send peacekeeping troops to Somalia, as there was no peace to keep." So if there is unrest then it's better not to send peace-keepers because there might be conflict. But if there's no conflict, then there's no need to send peace-keepers. Catch 22, anyone? A wonderful example of the usefulness and importance of the UN :whistling:

I think you are intentionally misunderstanding this admittedly open to interpretation quote. There is no peace to keep because there is no central authority to report to. There is no agency/government that can provide the control or to hand the control over to.

You send in troops to there and you are now the government with dozens of factions that are still fighting. As you say later you'd have to pick a warlord and then prop him up or kill everyone else. Essentially you would end up sending in a force that is meant to be more of a high powered police force (that's what the UN Peacekeepers are supposed to do) and turn them into an invasionary force. Which in this case would pretty much escalate the violence.

This relates to some of my posts in the Pirates thread. The best solution looks to be to prop up a warlord. We did that in Afghanistan decades ago, how did that turn out for us again? The UN has issues, for sure, and it's not that they said they wouldn't go in, but since they don't have their own army you need the member nations to actually believe in the idea and provide support. The Somalis aren't really in a position to ask even if they wanted. So the UN has to decide to go in without permission. That's not really an issue that has happened before and I think that is justified. But again you need the troops you are sending into there to have a goal or you'll never get anyone to go.

Yeah it's callous but do you want to send a bunch of American 18-40 year olds over there to get shot at and killed when you have no idea what they are trying to accomplish other than "keep the peace" that will collapse again as soon as they leave? We went over this before. As you said it will likely take generations to get something something stable over there. The UN goes in now they are committing to generations unless we can find a way to jump start a more stable government. It does some good to stop the fighting that is going on. It gives you a better chance to find a more stable long term solution than what the people of Somali have right now. But as the article said it's high risk and very low reward. I'm not altruistic enough to want my friends killed over there for that marginal benefit. I'd be much happier if there were a more promising potential end.

Really I think I'm a dick enough to say, let them keep killing each other. Provide refugees a place to flee too and say screw it. I understand not wanting to leave your home or your culture, but how strong can those ties be after two decades of war? Get the people out that want out and let them start over. Those who really want to stay will have something they really want to fight for. After giving the people a way to get the hell out then you can say that we'll kill any pirates on sight. Any attacks on people fleeing will be met with harsh resistance. That limits the engagement. Yeah, figuring out what to do with 5 million displaced people (the country only has about 10 million people and I'm figuring we'll only displace half of them) is not an easy task but work on that. You want to stay and fight, fine, but we're not sending food or aid after we've moved the people out.

Of course that won't work either. I can shoot lots of holes in that idea as well.

Oh well.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I think you are intentionally misunderstanding this admittedly open to interpretation quote. There is no peace to keep because there is no central authority to report to. There is no agency/government that can provide the control or to hand the control over to.

It was the phrasing of the statement I have trouble with, not the underlying concept. In my opinion, the concept of external (UN, EU, AU, USA) peace-keeping forces is an oxymoron. If there is peace then the internal forces are doing the job, and no external forces are needed. If there is no peace, then how can any forces, internal or external, 'keep' it? Calling them by the diplomatic, politically correct, weasel worded, 'peace-keeping force' name is the problem. I can't think of anyplace they've been deployed where they merely had to 'keep' the peace. In every case I can think of, they had to establish a peace to keep.

You send in troops to there and you are now the government with dozens of factions that are still fighting. As you say later you'd have to pick a warlord and then prop him up or kill everyone else. Essentially you would end up sending in a force that is meant to be more of a high powered police force (that's what the UN Peacekeepers are supposed to do) and turn them into an invasionary force. Which in this case would pretty much escalate the violence.

You would have to go in with enough power to dominate *all* the warlords. You would have to establish a government based on fear that controlled the country (like Tito did ages ago in the Balkans). And you would have to stay there long enough to allow the people to eventually take up the responsibility of governing themselves (three generations, at least, in my estimate from historical precedence). Since I don't see anyone with the political will to do this, to commit to this, and to follow through, then I think it is best not to interfere internally at all.

The best solution looks to be to prop up a warlord. We did that in Afghanistan decades ago, how did that turn out for us again?

Actually, we supported the mujahideen during the invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR. And that worked out very well for us in the long run. Then, when Afghanistan was of no further use to us, we pretty much ignored it, losing both the support of its people and the political coin we'd garnered there. Then we 'invaded' in the aftermath of 9/11 and have since propped up warlords. And it has not been too successful, except perhaps to the junkies and their supply of heroin. repeating our mistakes may not be the best foreign policy;)

But again you need the troops you are sending into there to have a goal or you'll never get anyone to go.

Right. A well defined, measurable goal and a realistic exit strategy. Or a very long term commitment.

The UN goes in now they are committing to generations unless we can find a way to jump start a more stable government. . . . I'd be much happier if there were a more promising potential end.

Realistically, there is no short term solution.

Really I think I'm a dick enough to say, let them keep killing each other. Provide refugees a place to flee too and say screw it.

Not that there are many places for refugees in Equatorial Eastern Africa.

After giving the people a way to get the hell out then you can say that we'll kill any pirates on sight.

Not sure how the two are related. Not all the people who chose to stay will be pirates.

Any attacks on people fleeing will be met with harsh resistance. That limits the engagement.

Historically, this has not worked too well. You need to operate within the country to enforce this. Say you pick a distance (five miles, for example) into the country as a safe zone for refugees. The people attacking the refugees then move their operations just outside this zone. So you either have the same problem, only five miles further in, or you expand the safe zone. Ultimately you either give up, or the whole country becomes a safe zone and you've got the same 'peace keeping' problem which is insolvable now.

The reality is that most that we can do will make the situation worse. What needs to be done (education, mostly) we can't even seem to do for ourselves.

--Pete

[Jester]

The reality is that most that we can do will make the situation worse. What needs to be done (education, mostly) we can't even seem to do for ourselves.

Chickens 'n eggs. An educational system won't function without the incentive to use it. People have no incentive to send their kids to school, nor kids to pay attention in class, if everyone knows that the best prospects for earning a living are to work for the local warlord, who either doesn't care if you're educated, or perhaps prefers it if you aren't. If an education doesn't lead to a good job, why waste your time at it, especially if your family is on the brink of starvation anyway?

Development is a tricky thing, but this much is clear to me: there have to be incentives and programs working together.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Chickens 'n eggs.

Dino's had eggs. Question answered.;)

An educational system won't function without the incentive to use it. People have no incentive to send their kids to school, nor kids to pay attention in class, if everyone knows that the best prospects for earning a living are to work for the local warlord, who either doesn't care if you're educated, or perhaps prefers it if you aren't. If an education doesn't lead to a good job, why waste your time at it, especially if your family is on the brink of starvation anyway?

John signed Magna Carta with his signet and his mark because he was illiterate. Best way to get ahead back then was to be a fighter working for the local <strike>warlord</strike> baron. Somehow education caught on anyway.

Development is a tricky thing, but this much is clear to me: there have to be incentives and programs working together.

True, but what kind of incentives? And how do you get them started?

--Pete

[Jester]

John signed Magna Carta with his signet and his mark because he was illiterate. Best way to get ahead back then was to be a fighter working for the local <strike>warlord</strike> baron. Somehow education caught on anyway.

Sure, and if you've got eight centuries to wait, I'm sure the Somalis will catch up. British (or English, way back) society evolved, slowly and organically, with the will, incentive, and ability to do so moving roughly forward together for centuries. If you'd just told King John "education is the key!", it might have been good advice, but there's not a tremendous amount he could have done with it. Medieval society only had so much use for educated people, and education was costly to obtain.

True, but what kind of incentives? And how do you get them started?

If that was an easy question, then we probably wouldn't have a couple billion people living in poverty on this planet. But it is the interconnectedness that is the problem of failed states like Somalia, and one major reason why great tons of aid has accomplished quite a bit in keeping people from starving to death, but not a whole lot in putting Somalia on the path to a modern society.

Somehow, conditions have to make being a peaceful farmer, whose kids are getting educated, who pays taxes and saves money for the future, a better deal for Somalis than joining a militia or a pirate crew and making a quick buck. That means security has to be in place, at least in part. It means jobs have to exist, and pay enough to get by. It means that markets have to be secure enough that you can count on not having to scrounge for necessities. It means that your kids have to have a pretty good chance of living well past the end of their schooling. Until those things are at least partially true, education is going to be valued very little, and of very little use.

But, of course, each of those things is in part dependent on the others. The same interconnected web of externalities that make the first world a nice place to live makes Somalia a hellhole.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Sure, and if you've got eight centuries to wait, I'm sure the Somalis will catch up.

While I doubt that it will take eight centuries with modern pressures, I would not be surprised if it takes one. So, what to do in the meanwhile and how to apply those pressures in a most effective way seems to be the crucial question.

British (or English, way back) society evolved, slowly and organically, with the will, incentive, and ability to do so moving roughly forward together for centuries. If you'd just told King John "education is the key!", it might have been good advice, but there's not a tremendous amount he could have done with it. Medieval society only had so much use for educated people, and education was costly to obtain.

Education was costly (too much so even for a Plantagenet prince) and not particularly useful. What changed? Why? Can we apply those changes to places like Somalia to accelerate the process? Does history teach lessons, or does it only give warnings? And if it does, who is reading those lessons and how is he applying them?

I've read Hume's History of England. I understand much of what transpired from the Norman Conquest (the rest was prologue, although the nature of the Saxon is of importance) to the eve of the Glorious Revolution. I understand 'factions' and 'favorites'. But nowhere do I see the impetus to educate, the forces making literacy desirable and, thus, more common. So, if education needs a spur other than curiosity, what is that spur? A good job? That's training. And that's a modern notion, born in the industrial revolution.

If that was an easy question, then we probably wouldn't have a couple billion people living in poverty on this planet. But it is the interconnectedness that is the problem of failed states like Somalia, and one major reason why great tons of aid has accomplished quite a bit in keeping people from starving to death, but not a whole lot in putting Somalia on the path to a modern society.

True. But the easy questions are too dull to discuss.

Somehow, conditions have to make being a peaceful farmer, whose kids are getting educated, who pays taxes and saves money for the future, a better deal for Somalis than joining a militia or a pirate crew and making a quick buck. That means security has to be in place, at least in part. It means jobs have to exist, and pay enough to get by. It means that markets have to be secure enough that you can count on not having to scrounge for necessities. It means that your kids have to have a pretty good chance of living well past the end of their schooling. Until those things are at least partially true, education is going to be valued very little, and of very little use.

But, of course, each of those things is in part dependent on the others. The same interconnected web of externalities that make the first world a nice place to live makes Somalia a hellhole.

The history of Somalia is one of brief periods of progress under unification with long periods of stagnation or regression under tribal wars. It is a story all too common in third world countries, but it isn't restricted to them. In 1965 I was stationed in Germany. One evening I was in a local tavern when a loud discussion broke out. My German was not sufficient for me to follow the arguments, but it was good enough to understand, and remember, the parting words of one person, (please forgive my poor German) "Ich nicht bin deutsch, Ich bin preuss!"

When humanity captures more loyalty than the tribe, the millennium may well have arrived.

--Pete

[Jester]

I suppose there are a handful of historical examples of spreading literacy (as the most basic form of education) when it wasn't necessarily of direct practical use. Many societies developed literacy of reading religious text, which is I suspect the largest source of literacy amongst the masses in pre-1800s Britain. The Chinese also (perhaps uninentionally) spread literacy by allowing peasants to sit the Confucian bureaucratic exams; skills that were developed to try and get a family member into a high-status group could then be adapted to peasant life.

However, both of those things would be tough to implement in Somalia. I'm not sure we really want to encourage religious literacy, considering how tightly that's tied to the warlord problem, and there is no secular equivalent like in China. Trying for more sophisticated forms of education is probably impossible where almost 2/3 of the population cannot even read.

Not that it wouldn't be nice, and maybe there is progress that can be made. The education of women seems to have well-established correlation (and probably causation, but that's tougher to prove) with all sorts of social benefits, especially smaller family sizes and improved child health. That would certainly help solve the problems in Somalia, at least as step one. (Of course, the same issues apply: if you can't enforce security, you can't keep up a controversial education program, and if you aren't popular, you can't enforce security without overwhelming force, and so on.)

Tellingly, literacy rates in Somalia are terrible, and women's rates are half that of men's, about 50% and 25% respectively. Their median age is also below the age required to vote in the States. That means a lot of young people out looking to make their way in the world, and not a lot of established community to help them do it.

There may come a day in Somalia where even the State is more important than the Tribe, let alone all of humanity. But for the moment, there is simply no incentive or space for that kind of awareness. Life is lived from hand to mouth. The local powers control their lives, and the rest of humanity has precious little to offer them, no matter how idealistic they may be.

Maybe they'll have their own Bismark to bang heads until they all come together. But Germany in the 19th century had every possible advantage when compared with Somalia now, so it's going to take more than just a big warlord.

I don't know. I'm pessimistic about these things. I'm Burkean enough to believe in the power of inherited patterns of life, and I despair at what do once a country drops to a point where those patterns have largely been destroyed. Has such a country ever recovered? Centuries is almost certainly the time frame, and it might well take something like a World Army pointing lots of guns at people for centuries to manage a recovery.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

I'm pessimistic about these things.

I'll say. You make me feel like a wild eyed rosed bespectacled optimist.

--Pete

[Jester]

I'll say. You make me feel like a wild eyed rosed bespectacled optimist.

Well, who knows. Maybe the Somalis will find some brilliant, enlightened leader who can bring together a coalition to defeat the warlords, establish a stable state, and begin development. Maybe Somalis will then be able to trust that the future isn't so bleak, and plan their lives accordingly. Maybe the western nations will stop stealing their fish, and cooperate in supporting the fragile nation by dropping trade barriers and offering well-targeted aid. Maybe they'll find oil to give them an artificial boost towards paying down their dizzying levels of debt.

But I wouldn't put a big bet on it.

-Jester

Afterthought: The median person in Somalia has lived their whole lives without ever having known a national government.

And someone apparently did a recent PhD on education in Somalia under anarchy, in case anyone is interested.

[kandrathe]

...a better deal for Somalis than joining a militia or a pirate crew and making a quick buck.

What is the difference between an eighteen year old Somali pirate and an eighteen year old drug dealer in any urban US city?

[Kevin]

What is the difference between an eighteen year old Somali pirate and an eighteen year old drug dealer in any urban US city?

The US citizen really does have more options even if they don't choose to follow them. They may have chosen the path of least resistance, but they had a lot more options to follow to get food in their mouth. Many of the 18 year old (and younger) drug dealers aren't doing it for subsistence either.

The better question may have been "What is the difference between an 18 year old Somali pirate and an 18 year old gang member in any US city".

I still don't think it's a fully valid question. I actually think less of the urban gang member in this country than the Somali pirate. As bad as things can be in the inner city and as oppressive and unfair as our culture can be there are options. There are people that can and will provide education to that youth if they put forth any effort to get it. The Somali pirate didn't have that option.

Most of humanity takes the path of least resistance though. Heck I tend to go that way as well, but I'm aware that I'm turning down other options and that I can make other choices. I don't live in country that hasn't really had a government for 20+ years.

[Jester]

What is the difference between an eighteen year old Somali pirate and an eighteen year old drug dealer in any urban US city?

The logic is the same: perverse incentives. Even if opportunities are theoretically made available, they are not as attractive as the socially disastrous alternatives.

Not that an 18 year old black kid from Chicago faces anywhere near the problems that an 18 year old Somali kid does, of course.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
I can't think of anyplace they've been deployed where they merely had to 'keep' the peace.

Sinai. Post Camp David. The peace was underwritten by American bribes to both parties, which continue to this day.

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

Sinai. Post Camp David. The peace was underwritten by American bribes to both parties, which continue to this day.

Thanks, forgot about that one.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
Thanks, forgot about that one.

--Pete

Aye, and the problem is that peacekeeping is noble in intent, but very impractical in execution.

Peace enforcement, on the other hand, is a bit more practical but it pisses people off.

See US Civil War, followed by Radical Reconstruction, as a fine example. It betrayed Lincoln's intent for the post war evolution to be one of healing. Thaddeus Stephens? Dead, but not soon enough.

I then look at Iraq, and wonder at how people don't learn from our own history.

I have for years decided that Paul Bremmer must have had a financial interest in an old REM album:

Fables of the Reconstruction.

Occhi