Response 1: United Nations peacekeeping operations thrive in some of the most challenging environments across the globe. Their task usually includes, dealing  with an array of conflicts or post-war repercussions. Most would agree that, since 1945, the UN has effectively, “provided food to 90 million people in over seventy-five countries, assisted 34 million refugees, worked with 140 nations to minimize climate change,  seventy-one international peacekeeping missions, and finally aided fifty countries per year with their elections” (UN, 2020). And yet, disappointments occurred at several points of their existence. Since “the UN has been involved in nearly every major international  conflict,” we can expect to see some major mishaps. (Bercovitch and Jackson 2009, 67).  For instance, both the Rwanda and Bosnia genocide are key reminders of the UN’s gross failures.  The UN consists, of several intertwined organs. Having a very large body, “each of the 193 Member States, of the United Nations is also a member  of the General Assembly. States are admitted to membership in the UN by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council” ( UN.org 2020). Following its Charter, the UN oversees at least “thirteen  operations across the Continent” (UN 202).  Deciding whether the UN is effective or not, depends on the UN’s ability to reduce conflict. When it comes to human rights violations, one of the  greatest tools the UN has to its advantage, is its media shaming. “Moreover, their data shows that the UN has the worse success rate when intervening in intrastate conflict (conflicts within states), yet this has become the  more common type of conflict since the 1990s” (Bercovitch and Jackson 2009: 68) Shashi, offered an opinion as to why the UN isn’t effective. The author concedes that;  “The problem of reforming the Security Council is rather akin to a situation in which a number of doctors gather  around a patient and all agree on the diagnosis, but they cannot agree  on the prescription. The diagnosis is clear: the Security Council (SC) reflects the geopolitical realities of 1945 and not of  today. This situation can be anatomized mathematically, geographically, and politically, as well as in terms of equity” (Shashi 2011).  Contrary to what Shashi says, the UN has its own means of measuring success. Accordingly, it must, “be guided by the principles of consent, impartiality  and the non-use of force except in self-defense and defense of the mandate; Be perceived as legitimate and credible, particularly in the eyes of the local population, and Promote national and local ownership of the peace process in the host country” (UN 2020).  With this thought in mind, the UN has shown significant changes in countries like, “Sierra Leone, Burundi, Côte d’Ivoire, Timor-Leste, Liberia, Haiti and Kosovo” (UN). During these ongoing operations the UN has provided;  “Basic security guarantees and responding to crises, supporting.

1. Response 1:
United Nations peacekeeping operations thrive in some of the
most challenging environments across the globe. Their task
usually includes, dealing with an array of conflicts or post-war
repercussions. Most would agree that, since 1945, the UN has
effectively, “provided food to 90 million people in over
seventy-five countries, assisted 34 million refugees, worked
with 140 nations to minimize climate change, seventy-one
international peacekeeping missions, and finally aided fifty
countries per year with their elections” (UN, 2020). And yet,
disappointments occurred at several points of their existence.
Since “the UN has been involved in nearly every major
international conflict,” we can expect to see some major
mishaps. (Bercovitch and Jackson 2009, 67). For instance, both
the Rwanda and Bosnia genocide are key reminders of the UN’s
gross failures.
The UN consists, of several intertwined organs. Having a very
large body, “each of the 193 Member States, of the United
Nations is also a member of the General Assembly. States are
admitted to membership in the UN by a decision of the General
Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council” (
UN.org
2020). Following its Charter, the UN oversees at least “thirteen
operations across the Continent” (UN 202).
Deciding whether the UN is effective or not, depends on the
UN’s ability to reduce conflict. When it comes to human rights
violations, one of the greatest tools the UN has to its
advantage, is its media shaming. “Moreover, their data shows
that the UN has the worse success rate when intervening in
intrastate conflict (conflicts within states), yet this has become
the more common type of conflict since the 1990s” (Bercovitch

2. and Jackson 2009: 68) Shashi, offered an opinion as to why the
UN isn’t effective. The author concedes that;
“The problem of reforming the Security Council is rather akin
to a situation in which a number of doctors gather around a
patient and all agree on the diagnosis, but they cannot agree
on the prescription. The diagnosis is clear: the Security Council
(SC) reflects the geopolitical realities of 1945 and not of today.
This situation can be anatomized mathematically,
geographically, and politically, as well as in terms of equity”
(Shashi 2011).
Contrary to what Shashi says, the UN has its own means of
measuring success. Accordingly, it must, “be guided by the
principles of consent, impartiality and the non-use of force
except in self-defense and defense of the mandate; Be perceived
as legitimate and credible, particularly in the eyes of the local
population, and Promote national and local ownership of the
peace process in the host country” (UN 2020). With this
thought in mind, the UN has shown significant changes in
countries like, “Sierra Leone, Burundi, Côte d’Ivoire, Timor-
Leste, Liberia, Haiti and Kosovo” (UN). During these ongoing
operations the UN has provided;
“Basic security guarantees and responding to crises, supporting
political transitions and helping buttress fragile new state
institutions. In furtherance, they have helped countries to close
the chapter of conflict and open a path to normal development,
even if major peace-building challenges remained” (UN 2020).
While I applaud the efforts of the United Nations, I believe
their infrastructure is greatly flawed. As a body, elite countries,
tout their power ignoring centuries of a weak, failing,
infrastructure. The mere fact that the UN has prolonged
operations in Africa and the Middle East, where resources are

3. vastly fought over, raises suspicion. Perhaps the UN, has proven
it is tough on “crime” preventing natives from bearing arms.
However, and to the best of my opinion, the UN receives an
“F," when it comes to helping the mentored country gain
independence. There is still massive violence, rape, land grabs,
restricted resources, and increased poverty in many of the areas
the UN oversees. Take for example Sierra Leone. A country in
which the UN considers to be successful. Currently, while
under the watchful eye of the UN; Sierra Leone remains highly
vulnerable. According to sources, “ crisis, and rampant
inflation, have had an impact on the country’s food security.
Chronic malnutrition remains a major problem with 31.3% of
children suffering from stunted growth. Maternal mortality, is
currently one of the highest ratios in the world, and is a national
priority. Finally, lack of access to basic services is also
problematic, with 32.2% of the population having no access to a
source of drinking water” (UN Peacekeeping 2020)
If "reduction" only, is the goal, than the UN has done its job.
However, if their mission is to eradicate the real problems
facing international countries, then being “legitimate and
credible particularly in the eyes of the local population,” is
concerning. In respect of this, mentored countries are seeking
help elsewhere. Non-governmental organizations like, “Actions
Against Hunger,” are sincerely tackling the same problems,
with less funding, and no political gains. Numerous other
NGO’s, are now engaging in strategic agricultural activities, as
a means of tackling the hunger problems, across the same
spectrum as the UN.
Perhaps the UN should take a lesson from some of the grass
roots NGOs. The UN prides itself with being involved in every
international conflict, since their commencement. My question
would be, why have they waited until 2010, to finally
implement a food stability movement? And why is it taking so
long to reach the ultimate goal. I think the saying goes, "give a

4. man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed
him for a life-time". According to the Food and Agriculture
Organization:
“A US$900 million 'global program for food security’ was
announced only on April 22, 2010. It is funded by the United
States, Canada, Spain, and South Korea, and the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation also joined” the program. On June
23, 2010, an amount of US$224 million was allocated to the
first five beneficiaries: Bangladesh, Haiti, Rwanda, Sierra
Leone, and Togo” (Sasson 2012).
PS-research not included here reveals, Bill Gates means Africa
no good. Regardless, of the money he throws around. But this
is a story for another day. Gates, goal for Africa, is population
control. Besides, proper use of nearly a billion dollars, would
have left Africa looking like
Response 2:
The foremost challenge facing the United Nations is the risk of
delegitimization via a loss of credibility due to an inability to
adapt. The bureaucratic challenges the UN currently face
regarding reform seem insurmountable. On top of that, the end-
state picture of a post-reform UN is undefined. Shashi Tharoor
(2011) describes the veto power associate with the permanent
Security Council positions as a major point of contention when
discussing reform. Tharoor points out that the five permanent
UNSC members with veto powers (the United States, Britain,
France, Russia, and China) lack geographic diversity. As such,
the legitimacy of their decisions and influence in unrepresented
parts of the world, like South America and Africa, are
scrutinized. According to critics of the veto-player theory, more
veto-holding members will only sandbag intervention efforts
and cost valuable time when action is needed.

5. According to research on conflict mitigation and prevention, it
is clear that IOs like the United Nations are effective to some
degree in developing peace and mitigating ongoing conflicts.
Shannon, Morey, and Boehmke (2010) discovered that IO
intervention is a catalyst for bringing conflicting parties to
negotiations. Additionally, Doyle and Sambanis (2000)
determined that a strong third-party military presence is
effective at stopping ongoing violence. From these data sets, we
can determine that the United Nations achieves noteworthy
success in terms of mitigation. However, there is little data to
support (in fact there is significant data to refute) the ability of
IOs, including the UN, to prevent conflicts from initiating. One
challenge to conflict prevention that is not analyzed in this
week’s reading is that of state sovereignty and the
responsibility to protect. International intervention is easier to
justify (or harder to ignore) once a conflict is underway and the
global responsibility to protect the human rights of non-
combatants is in effect
The statistics show that the UN is more effective in
peacebuilding operations between states than it is in internal
conflicts (Week 8 Lesson & Doyle and Sambanis 2000). This
can be partially attributed to the fact that intrastate conflicts are
often ethnic-based conflict. As Doyle and Sambanis (2000)
found in their research, these types of conflict have a low
success rate for international organization peacebuilding
efforts. This can be attributed to the fact that “ethnic or
internal wars are often remarkably resistant to any conflict
management efforts” and “unless there is some degree of
regional or international pressure, the warring sides almost
always choose to fight to the finish” (Bercovitch and Simpson
2010, 71). This supports Doyle and Sambanis’s (2000) findings
when you consider the need for military intervention.
Furthermore, according to the same study, peacebuilding efforts

6. are more likely to be successful when the conflict is drawn out,
settled by a peace treaty, and subjected to a strong UN peace
presence with a relatively extensive mandate (Doyle and
Sambanis 2000). This is in alignment with the concept that “war
will recur if the expected utility of war is greater than the
expected utility of peace” (Doyle and Sambanis 2000, 780).
Conflicting parties are unlikely to push for peace when they
still believe a chance of victory remains. As conflicts are
prolonged in a standoff the perception of possible victory
decreases among all parties and the opportunity for peace
increases.
Response 3:
The first item that I noted during our reading related to the UN
effectiveness is whether the Security Council should be
expanded or not. Presently, the Security Council has 15 nations
amongst the 192 members of the UN. There are several
anomalies between the Security Council and the member states.
For instance there are some geographically anomalies. One of
this geographical anomalies is that Europe makes up 33% of
Security Council while only making up 5% of population. Next,
there are four substantial (both politically and economically)
nations that are not within the Security Council, which are
Germany, Japan, India and Brazil. With the required two thirds
majority needed for a nation to be approved and with so many
national rivalries, reform within the Security Council seems
dead on arrival. Third, the major gridlock that prevents the UN
from successfully resolving conflicts is the divide between the
US and Russia. With these issues in mind, there is a potential
for the UN to be discredited and for nations to look to other
alternatives to the UN such as the G-8, G-8 plus China, India,
Brazil and the South Africa or it could be replaced by the G-20
(Tharoor, p 402).

7. Next, we will look at peacekeeping or peacebuilding, which is
defined as “an attempt, after the peace has been negotiated or
imposed, to address the source of current hostility and build
local capacities for conflict resolution” (Doyle, p779). The UN
has been most successful in mitigating conflicts between
nations (interstate). However, the UN has not been successful
in preventing conflict within the states (intrastate).
Unfortunately for the UN, the majority of the conflicts are
within the states. The UN might be effective amongst conflicts
between states because there are able to affect sanctions or
enforcement mechanisms to curb the violence on both side so
they are forces mediate. The conflicts within a state such as
civil wars often include numerous non-state actors so their
counterproductive eff