Peacekeeping

Myopia from the Heritage Foundation

With apparently little regard for American national security interests, the Heritage Foundation would have us shortchange UN Peacekeeping

The Heritage Foundation's Brett Schaefer is seemingly apoplectic that the Obama administration would agree to a 1.2 to 1.7 percent increase in its dues payments to UN Peacekeeping.  According to Schaefer this adds and additional $100 million a year to American contributions to UN Peacekeeping  and means President Obama is "letting down" the American taxpayer.

Bill Clinton's other job

You know, the one he is actually paid for (well, sort of). After rescuing journalists imprisoned in North Korea, Clinton is back to...talking about turning sawdust into fuel.

US to pay off UN Peacekeeping debt

In a meeting at the Security Council yesterday, Susan Rice announced that the United States had officially paid off it's arrears to UN Peacekeeping.  From a Louis Charbonneau in Reuters (in which the Better World Campaign is given a nice shout-out)

Amb. Rice testifying in the House

U.S.-UN Ambassador Rice has begun her testimony in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Check it out. I'll also be tweeting.
Update: Rice's testimony is tracking pretty closely with her remarks in front of the Security Council a month ago.

The U.S. line on Peacekeeping

Ambassador Rice is set to testify in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee this Wednesday.  We'll be there, tweeting and live blogging. If you just can't wait, look to her remarks in front of the Security Council in late June where she delineated U.S. commitments on UN peacekeeping.  The highlights:

Max Boot's UN mercenaries

Max Boot takes issue with Gideon Rachman's assumption that conservatives are reflexively opposed to the very idea of the "UN army" that Rachman raised in his FT column the other day. Boot avers that he -- unlike, he admits, most conservatives -- is not in fact is not opposed to the concept, only Rachman's specific proposal.

A UN army is not forthcoming in Somalia either...

In his Financial Times column today, Gideon Rachman makes the argument for a "United Nations army." His test case, interestingly, is Somalia, where offshore piracy has galvanized international cooperation, but 18 years of onshore violence and instability has rumbled on unchecked. Would it be easier, or any more advisable, to send UN peackeepers to Somalia if there were, as Rachman proposes, "a proper UN force on permanent stand-by?"

A brief word on UNAMID

A brief description of the Secretary-General's most recent report on Darfur alleges that cooperation between the Sudanese government and the UN peacekeeping force "has improved." This is true, but considering the low baseline of Sudan's "cooperation," it is unfortunately not altogether helpful. As the S-G's report itself observes, before sounding that somewhat optimistic note:

Tanks keeping the peace in Somalia

Danger Room's David Axe has the skinny on the kind of weaponry that (U.S.-backed) African Union peacekeepers are using to keep a few blocks of Mogadishu out of the control of insurgents:

Syndicate content