[lit-ideas] Alternatives ?
- From: Torgeir Fjeld <torgeir_fjeld@xxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Torgeir Fjeld <torgeir_fjeld@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 01:30:27 +0000 (UTC)
Empiricism -- more than hot air?
Megan Shannon et al. writes in American Political Science Review ("Beyond
Keeping Peace: United Nations Effectiveness in the Midst of Figthing", November
2014) that "the number of UN peacekeeping personnel deployed influences the
amount of battlefield deaths in" civil wars. Empirical "analyses show that
increasing numbers of armed military troops are associated with reduced
battlefield deaths, while police and observers are not. Considering that the UN
is often criticized for ineffectiveness, these results have important
implications: if appropriately composed, UN peacekeeping missions reduce
violent conflict."
Remeber Iraq, Libya etc -- the _only possible intervention_ was Nato-led
bombing? The downside has been an increase in anti-West sentiment, singular
acts of terror with reference to obscure counter-modernist ideals etc. The
bombing raids that surely assist in training our pilots have a massive -- let's
call it, for lack of a better term, _moral_ -- cost: they serve as intolerable
provocations to civilians and give grounds for mobillization and s.c.
radicalization.
Would UN-led interventions offer an alternative? SHannon et al.s study
indicates that they may. More blue helmets, fewer deaths. Police forces and
observers are not sufficient. Med vennlig hilsen / Yours sincerely,
Torgeir Fjeld
http://independent.academia.edu/TorgeirFjeld
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Alternatives ? - Torgeir Fjeld
