What do you think about this book " Goulding - The Evolution of United Nations Peacekeeping"

What I think about this book:

The evolution of United Nations peacekeeping by Marrack Goulding explained how the United Nations help control and resolve armed conflicts.

We began with five headings. 1. Peacekeeping operations were United Nations operations - a large group of nations. 2. Consent of the parties to the conflict, this means people must agree to peace. The strength is less threat to keep peace and more acceptance of the troops. The weakness is if the people decide they want war, they go to war. 3. Impartial presence between the parties. 4. Small amounts of troops are not practicable to keep standing army. 5. Use of force is minimal, should be used only in self-defense. If troops use force, other party might stop non-violence also.

There are six different types of peacekeeping. 1. Preventive deployment, 2. Traditional peacekeeping, 3. Implementation of a comprehensive settlement, 4. To protect the delivery of humanitarian relief supplies, 5. Deployment of a UN force in a country where the institutions of state have largely collapsed (not peacekeeping). 6. Ceasefire enforcement also not peacekeeping. The thing that confused me in this article is the difference between peace keeping and peace enforcement. This article specifically mentions the Desert storm was considered peace enforcement. I think of Desert Storm as being a war. If peace enforcement is considered part of peace (word is in title), is there really ever a war? Can we use this wording to justify war? I feel the peace enforcement may be a wobbly line in the sand.

find someone else and ask them what they aslo think about this book or what they think about your thoughts it could be a friend or someone you dont know?

I want to know what you think about this? " Goulding - The Evolution of United Nations Peacekeeping"

pur-new-sol

Related Questions