UN peacekeeping missions....?
How do they differ to that of US or British military missions, is it assumed that they are not as dangerous? Are deployments shorter. I'd like to know more as I have a friend on a peacekeeping mission.
- conranger1Lv 79 years agoFavorite Answer
One of the leading Nations involved in U.N. Peacekeeping missions since the middle of the 1950's has been the Republic of Ireland, they even run a United Nations Peacekeeping School at the Curragh Military Camp in County Kildare. So I would not call them a Third World Country.
The Irish have had over 40 soldiers die on the U.N.I.F.I.L. missions in South Lebanon, not all by combat, but including accidents, murder and sickness.
Many Irish Military Officers and senior NCO's have served as Observers on U.N. Observer Missions in for example India-Pakistan / Iran-Iraq (before the Gulf War period.)
The Irish have served with distinction in the Congo, Cyprus, Sinai, Lebanon, Golan Heights,
Battalion Missions in Chad-Sudan, East Timor, and Liberia.
The Swedes, Finns, Norwegians, French, Dutch too have fine records when involved in Peacekeeping Missions. The British have been involved in Cyprus for many years as Peacekeepers.
But you have to understand that United Nations Missions break down into two basic models, Peace Keeping / Peace Enforcing, one is low key, but the other is more akin to being on a war footing.
In recent years African countries have been accepted for use in problem areas regarding the continent of Africa, white Europeans being viewed with suspicion as trying to reclaim the old colonial Empires.
Basic deployments can be between 6 months to 1 year.
Safety issues depend on the type of conflict location, unknown dangers like Land-mines, local agitation.Source(s): Over 21 years in the Irish Military, including Peace-keeping duties in South Lebanon with U.N.I.F.I.L.
- Jim BLv 79 years ago
Kudos to the Irish, they have been strong supporters of the UN.
Canada has also been there, from the very first UN mission, Egypt, in 1956, and just about EVERY UN mission, since then. We were there in Cyprus, with the Irish and the Brits for all most thirty years.
Not as dangerous ? Not by any measure. We have lost over 100 Canadians on UN missions, all over the world. Only a few examples.......Bosinia, Serbia, Congo, Rwanda, Gaza, Thailand, and of course Haiti.
We wrote the book on how to get two or three warring sides to stop killing each other, and move back from their positions
. In some cases, we do it with negotiation ( in their own language ) and some times it takes a demonstration of our ability to hit them, at long range, with our snipers, or our armoured units. Nothing makes a rag tag army sit up and take notice better than hitting their guys at a mile and half, in the dark, with a single shot. Or showing them how we can see them, in the dark, with our night vision devices. Kind of takes the wind out of their sails.
In Serbia, and Bosnia, in the 1990's we had Canadian soldiers who spoke THEIR language, as they grew up speaking that language at home in Canada, as kids
. That gave us a big advantage, as we could listen to their radio conversations, AND when we went out to talk to them at a check point, we KNEW what they were saying to each other. We didn't trust the locally hired UN translators, to give us a honest understanding of what we were being told , by EITHER side of the confrontation. Besides, most of the time, both sides were either drunk or using drugs, so it was tough to trust what was said by anyone.
UN peacekeeping is not a walk to the beach, for sure, and you are just as dead if you step on a mine, as if you were shot by a 16 year old kid, who is high on heroin.
- Anonymous4 years ago
I easily tend to think of that preserving the peace in North & South Korea is important to the intire international. Canada could have the skill to narrate to that besides as any peacekeeping undertaking around the international.
- 9 years ago
They generally don't involve as much combat. Also, most of the troops come from third-world nations.