O.C. in the U.S.A. writes:

@Ishtiaq,
Americans invented Hollywood and yet when it comes to advertizing their good deeds, they are woefully inept. This has been one of my biggest complaints of my government. The American people want to see the schools, hospitals being built and the happy faces of Afghani children If they show it its only a 30 second sound bite. Never an interesting documentary. (Maybe the Taliban will hurt people who accept good things from Americans.) They never toot their own horn and show the world in a visual way, their good accomplishments. The mind works in pictures and most people are visual learners but do they use these tools?
Noooooooooooooooooo!!! It's frustrating.
There is a British show called the Choir which is getting rave reviews because people can actually see how children behave and misbehave in school. It's a world closed off to the taxpaying public. Americans want to see the good their money is doing but they don't ever get the chance because visual and television media is used inefficiently. I'm always writing to the President about my ideas but no one ever listens because I guess they think they know exactly what the American public wants. That's why the Republicans are taking over, unfortunately. I even told the FBI to advertize on the Google lookup page for wanted criminals. Then the other day I saw a little FBI wanted link but the letter size was small and uninteresting and didn't grab people's attention. I don't know who is hiring people down there but they need to know what teacher's know in order to grab the public's attention better.

Posted on Fri Oct 01, 2010

Ishtiaq in Pakistan writes:

Dear O.C in USA,its great to spread education it will help,and to remind you that USA has already played its vital role in every field like economy and education,you know it is a great fact that USA is the major country which is contributing in every field here in Pakistan but the masses(ordinary people) don't know about it.And on other hand there is china which is not contributing that much but people think that china is contributing very much?it is because of two main reasons(1)illiteracy (and those who are educated,are ill-educated) (2)the very role of Pakistani Army and their Allies (Religious leaders,feudal and warlords).These people don't let people to know about realities,because they don't want to see genuine democracy in this part of the world.And thus they present the negative image of USA.

Posted on Fri Oct 01, 2010

O.C. in the U.S.A. writes:

@Ishtiaq,
What you say is very interesting and I agree it would be in the USA's best interest to pay great attention to this region which they're probably already doing. It's just that American resources are spread so thin and the area is so vast. That's why education makes a lot of sense to me beacuse its such a unifying concept. Everyone wants their child to be educated because it means a better future. The government could do so much by enrolling everyone in online courses where qualifications from top universities could be gained for free. Education means everything because it represents freedom and a way out of poverty. I wish my government would concentrate on these ideas. Getting everyone working, studying and building. Movement gets the brain's endorphins flowing. Dreaming and building changes the future. This is the great future I want all Pakistani children to experience.

Posted on Thu Sep 30, 2010

Ishtiaq in Pakistan writes:

(Dear O.C in the USA)yes you are right in your own approach,your approach is civilized and decent but let me tell you that the majority of these people don't know about the upper values.Dear as you forced on the very concept of Pakistanism,i would like to tell you that pakistan is multiethnic society/state.And these people are not willingly accepting Pakistan as their homeland,Pashtons are demanding Pashtonistan,Balochs are demanding balochistan.So this is a great problem over here,these people are not happy to live as Pakistanis but they want their own national identities,so i think we should focus on these issues as well,but some forces like Pakistan Army and Pakistani Religious leaders are trying to keep them together some time by force and sometime by using religion as a tool,that's why it is quite difficult for these people to progress,first of all it is very much important to give these people their own identities by UN and than in their respected areas or separate countries, they should be administered by UN,thus developmental work can be done.We are struggling to create awareness among the people of this region. O.C,I think America should play its vital role.

Posted on Thu Sep 30, 2010

O.C. in the U.S.A. writes:

@Ishtiaq,
I understand your concern about warlords but if they aren't motivated to switch sides to serve the Pakistani people, then the only option is to kill them all and there are too many to kill and my government won't do that. I guess. One solution is to find a "buy in factor". What will make the warlords
stop being the bully of the region and accept a national political system because strong leadership in Pakistan has been missing for a long time. In order for Pakistan to improve, people need to give up individual control and establish a bigger, national control network. Pakistan has a great opportunity to become an industrial/technological giant in the Middle East but that won't happen if everyone is fighting each other. Someone has to give up control for the greater good of the country.
Education, business and markets would allow more people to change the corrupt, political landscape of Pakistan and get people involved in changing the system for the better. The Pakistani people need to "awaken" and decide their future and destiny. They must decide what kind of future they want for their children. America and the world can be a supportive friend to Pakistan but there are some problems so large that even they can't help solve, only the Pakistani people can.
Ishtiaq, I'm just an ordinary citizen, I have no power with governments but I do know that if the Pakistani people started to bring up the issues of poverty and corruption and demanded more accountability from the government on these issues, things might change for the better. If you have influence and movement, America will take notice.

Posted on Wed Sep 29, 2010

Ishtiaq in Pakistan writes:

(Dear O.C in USA)dear friend with due respect i disagree with your proposal that warlords should be given business opportunities to change their mindset,no it is impossible because these warlords are earning more money with the help of drugs and arms arms and ammunition smuggling,so they would not give-up their luxurious and kings like life style over here(specially Pakistani Army).My proposals for the change in Pashtun society are(1) The UN should deploy its forces in Pakistan and Afghanistan Pashton areas.2 the administration of these areas should be directly controlled by UN,3,education should be spread in pashton areas but the syllabus should be made(drafted)by international education experts.
Than I think every thing can be controlled(corruption and terrorism) both in this part of the world.

Posted on Wed Sep 29, 2010

O.C. in the U.S.A. writes:

@Ishtiaq,
Corruption is a difficult problem to solve once it contaminates an entire region, state, government. However, allowing an educational system into an area presents many business opportunities not envisioned. If warlords could be turned into entrepreneurs they would be able to make a lot more money through legitimate business sales than through shake downs. It's really an education and intelligence problem. Getting warlords to dream about a more prosperous future while simultaneously educating the region and getting an economy started. At some point, businesses could marginalize the warlord or get his mind preoccupied onto other things like a hundred demanding wives talking to him all at once. How would you change the situation in Pashtun? What are your ideas?

Posted on Tue Sep 28, 2010

S.I.M.K. in the U.S.A. writes:

I think the UN and IMF should be dismantled. These two institutions have brought NO good to people - only wars and poverty. These institutions are used by powerful countries to force their agenda on others. Not making it up - do little research of your own and it will be very clear to you what I'm talking about. I think we need to let other do their own thing - and build mutual respect. Trying to force everyone one way of thinking or one lifestyle brings nothing but conflict. No country should have any troops in other countries - unless they declare war. Just because we don't like others' way of life or ideas, it is no way a justification for going to war.

Posted on Tue Sep 28, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

Sometimes I think that the UN should never have tried to have any kind of military asset attached to it, period.

It is a diplomatic fora, dependant on its member states to keep the peace in the world.

It's not the UN 's responsibility as an org.

If it was, and they wanted to do it right, then the UN would have a military budget twice that of the USA on an annual basis.

Because that would be the kind of resourcing they'd need to do the job right.

Eliminating threats to peace has always been born by America, and whatever coalition of the willing diplomacy has been able to cobble together to deal with threats to international security.

The UN has no real warfighting capability and is incapable of holding its own against a determined agressor, it simply doesn't have the capacity or the hardware.

The UN doesn't even have the capability to serve a warrant on a genocidal maniac who has been indited by the ICC to stand trial for his crimes in Darfur.

When the UN itself gets attacked (as in Iraq) the general response is to withdraw from that country till securtity can be established by America and allies involved in conflict, rather than respond in a robust manner and see the job through.

No insult do I intend here to those that have the courage to wear a blue helmet knowing how quickly they can be brushed aside by those who want war or commit acts of terror.

So the focus I think isn't on where you deploy them, but in their capacity to get the job done in any given situation they might encounter, with all the harware and ROE mandated by circumstance.

If the UN as an org doesn't have the ability to declare war on a nation for breaking the peace of nations and fight it to win it, then you arn't going to be keeping the peace successfully.

I know folks try their best to, but patroling the Blue zone while rockets fly over their heads into Israel isn't getting the job done, if you get my drift.

Sitting in a compound a klick away from a village in the Congo while its citizens get slaughtered by ethnic cleansing isn't keeping the peace.

Folks need to decide what they wish the UN to become.

America often gets the bad rap as the "world's cop"...well do we want the UN to become that?

I'd say go for it if they could do the job right, but that wasn't what the UN was designed to do on the kinetic level of its own accord.

This is why it hasn't really been successful in its peace keeping missions on a consistant basis.

It can only keep the peace when the parties to conflict are willing to keep it themselves, and that's the sad truth of the matter.

Unless the UN is given the rapid reaction response capability to put an end to hostilities in an offensive manner to deny combattants the ability to make war, then don't be sending folks into harm's way to be cannon fodder.

Unless folks are willing to give the UN such athority then the UN should stick to being a diplomatic fora and humanitarian aid distibutor in disaster zones, and post conflict situations only. Use the blue helmets to distibute aid and their meager defensive capability to deliver it in a secure manner to those in harm's way.

It's not up to me to decide where the UN should apply its focus, but folks better sharpen it and decide what kind of results they wish to see in the future to build a better world to live in.

EJ

Posted on Tue Sep 28, 2010

Ishtiaq in Pakistan writes:

(dear O.C in the USA)I think you are right but i have told you earlier that pakistani-army would not allow it?because they allow that projects in which they get their huge shares,they deceive these innocent people in the name religion,and they don't want to see development over here in Pahstun areas,they just try their best to make it a war-zone.We appreciate and support each and every project which creates awareness and spread education among masses of this area.People like me can voluntarily work with you.We are not like our Pakistani Politicians and Army generals who just grab dollars for their own luxurious and corrupt life style.They deceive west world just for the sake of their own interests.Their Alliance is quite strong against people like us,who want to spread awareness among people.Their alliance is consisted of Pakistan Army,Politicians(all are Landlords and Feudal s ) and Mullas(religious leaders and mujahidens),they are well-organized and have controlled the resources by force.

Posted on Tue Sep 28, 2010

Donna in the U.S.A. writes:

wherever there is terrorism or our troops than our un energy shall be as well; and so that we might be a moment sooner than a terroist attempt.

Posted on Mon Sep 27, 2010

O.C. in the U.S.A. writes:

@Ishtiaq,
I was curious about what you were saying about the Pashtun area and was wondering if the USA provided online classes so that people in this area could gain technical qualifications from American universities and simultaneously learned about starting a business, would the people in Pashtun welcome this sort of training?

Posted on Mon Sep 27, 2010

Fred M. in the U.S.A. writes:

ISRAEL. they are the biggest challenge to America's security.

The NEOCONS of Netanyahu are worse than Hitler.

Posted on Mon Sep 27, 2010

Stephie in California writes:

I agree with everyone who stated that the UN needs to focus on a war against drugs. It is this money that is funding these wars and it is still difficult to trace in this day and age without getting bogged down in the mire of lawsuits involving privacy. The UN needs to move to the perimeter/border of every nation involved in the trade and cut the traffic off, literally, at airports, train stations and ports involving international traffic. To that end, piracy in the waters has flourished since the '80's, not diminished, and it is evident that the naval forces are in need of reinforcements as well. The people funding these wars are in it for the money, they have no regard for the end game. Cut off their ability to fund these wars and go from there.

Posted on Mon Sep 27, 2010

R.I.L.A. in California writes:

I think the great lakes region of Africa has had enough bloodshed and innocent lives lost to last lifetimes. The international community can no longer ignore the signs as they have done so many times before. That is where some of the main focus should be directed and real action needs to take place. The Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Uganda, and Burundi all need the help. Also, with the upcoming UN report on Rwanda's current government's role in the killings of thousands of Hutus, it is important to pay special attention to the country because that report may inspire more evil to take place.

Though as a Rwandan genocide survivor, I wonder if I am only wasting time even writing this comment. The truth is, the UN has always known what I've just said and more about troubles of central Africa yet they have always managed NOT to do anything. What will be different this time? Though if someone is reading this, and really taking these comments into consideration, then please, do follow up. Stop letting these people who clearly can't help themselves and whose leaders are the cause of their troubles continue to suffer.

Thank you.

Posted on Mon Sep 27, 2010

Rey R. in Pennsylvania writes:

UN should spend some time on Afghanistan. There's a lot of humanitarian aid, and a lot of peacekeeping that needs to be done. I don't know if I should be telling you this, since you're state.gov and all, but shh...the invading forces there haven't been doing such a good job at peacekeeping. Maybe the UN could do a better job! Like they did in Darfur or Rwanda. Look, I'm all for international communities, securing democracy, but stealing CNN's techniques for policymaking isn't the best way to do it.

Posted on Mon Sep 27, 2010

Ronald O. writes:

Palestine. The region in the West Bank has been peaceless for too long. We should focus our efforts on sustaining the peace talks and work on moving towards a better tomorrow.

Posted on Mon Sep 27, 2010

Palgye in South Korea writes:

facebook or twitter social network for people of Palestine and Israel to solve the problem one way to find new territory to the Palestinians go for a little action that makes the formation of public opinion? The Among Middle Eastern countries as far away country, looking for the peace that everyone wants.

Topic burdensome because someone suggested a little heavier hagieneun suddenly announced I think.

Posted on Mon Sep 27, 2010

Patrick in Maryland writes:

I think they could do a lot of good focusing on the drug trafficing near the Iran boarders.
That way terrorist couldn't buy weapons too,kill UN and Allied forces.This would be an achievable Task that would help everyones countries in the fight against Human suffering that come form the drug trade that creates drug addicts in all our countries.
I would also recommend sending them in to Mexico too,fight the drug cartels that support terrorist groups though out the world with the money they make off sell too the USA and Canadian people. This would also help stop the Iranians from sending weapons and money too terrorist in ,Pakistan, Afghanistan and all neighboring countries with terrorist groups.

Anyways,this could be a Good Mission for UN Peacekeepers too,stop the Evil that is spilling out of Iran into the world around Us.

I also hope, Israel blows the Hell out of Iran in the near Future, the world will be a better place with out them funding people who kill Women and Children in our Countries.

These Missions are all Tasks that could be Achieve if people really want to stop Terrorist and Terrorism .


Go UN Peacekeepers, Good Luck ! :):)

Posted on Mon Sep 27, 2010

Ole in New York writes:

Charles, with all respect, Chechnya and the rest of Caucasus is the region where precisely MORE and not LESS UN attention is needed. as, sadly, Russia is the main source of instability there(or better put, the policies of current Russian regime)

Posted on Mon Sep 27, 2010

Adam in Israel writes:

As a US citizen, I think the US needs to take a more firm stance against Israel. Israel does whatever it wants despite international and US pressure and international law. It's time we stood up and told them they cannot continue ignoring what's right. Things will not change without the US being more assertive against Israeli aggression.

Posted on Mon Sep 27, 2010

Ishtiaq A. in Pakistan writes:

Dear Sir,
The question that where the UN should focus its peacekeeping resources and why?the UN should work for the global peace and although it is working but sometimes it is misguided by the locals.In my opinion the UN peacekeeping forces should and the UN should deploy its forces in the Pashton majority areas of Pakistan,specially tribal areas where the ISI of Pakistan is functioning as state in a sate.I would like to draw the attention of world towards this injustice in this part of the world.Where people are killed just for the sake of dollars and for the interest of few people by Pakistani Army,they don't kill terrorists but innocent civilians. Once UN forces got control of this area the roots of terrorism can be eliminated from this part of the world easily.Thanks.

Posted on Mon Sep 27, 2010

O.C. in the U.S.A. writes:

What's the point of going into a country without establishing any lasting economy and education. The U.N. should run like a well greased machine. Conflict resolution, industries, infrastructure, education. Don't waste a good mind. Get people moving, building and dreaming so they're not looking for ways to kill you.

Posted on Mon Sep 27, 2010

Ron in New York writes:

UN Blues are Red Target.

Here it is. The UN Blues have become a red-hot target for all bad actors...mations, terrorist groups, extremeista looking for media attention...So, realize that they are often set-up....and scapegoated....Can we change this situation?...The UN has become an easy target.

Posted on Sun Sep 26, 2010

Helen writes:

I think UN should focus all its powers to improve the institutional structure first. Security Council should be reorganized after new and better criteria because the world map changed since 1945. If once a resolution used to be voted and respected ad litteram, nowdays, the meetings seem more like a occasion for divergents between countries.

Posted on Sun Sep 26, 2010

Bruce M. in the U.S.A. writes:

The establishment of majority rule in South Africa eliminated one of the three poles of instability that have plagued the continent in the past thirty years, but until the sprawling and intersecting conflicts in Southern Sudan, the CAR and eastern DCR are resolved, they will continue to undermine the opportunities for peaceful development in a broad swathe of Central Africa.

Posted on Sun Sep 26, 2010

I. in India writes:

I think it the time for the UN to take the form of world government but not before rationalization of UN-structure. When the world is getting closer in the several forms like EU union, ASEAN, & so on then it becomes relevant that UN may sooner or later become the one & only government of the world.

So, my answer to the question "Where Should the UN Focus Its Peacekeeping Resources, and Why?" is that it should focus its energy & resources towards the betterment of the world. There are many places in the world which require urgent intervention of the world body viz. Sudan,North Korea,Tibet,Afganistan,etc. There are various autocratic governments where people more particularly women & minorities don't have any rights & they need UN intervention.

Hence the UN should also work for the spread of democracy & elimination of any kind of autocracy like religion based, kingdoms, communists, army, etc.

Regards,

Posted on Sun Sep 26, 2010

A.J. in Idaho writes:

I think peacekeeping forces should be strengthened in Sudan. The Sudanese government has continued to commit mass atrocities and major human rights violations, and with the upcoming referendum the environment could get a lot worse. Thanks for all you do.

Posted on Sun Sep 26, 2010

Rita N. in Washington writes:

Call it peacekeeping or peacemaking but the people of Iran desperately need help. There is mass murder going on and only because some are very brave does the world know about it.

Ok, thats where.

And the why is not only as I've stated above but because Iran as an ally would be a very good thing in that region.

Posted on Sun Sep 26, 2010

Charles P. in New York writes:

I think the DRC or Sudan are the best options, both on a humanitarian level and on a political level. Israel and palestine are non-options as its a political firestorm. Somalia is so far gone that it requires more than "peacekeeping troops". Yemen is not an option because the situation has not deteriorated nearly enough, and the yemeni government is receiving outside aid anyways. So as far as remaining hotspots - DRC and Sudan are left. Of course there are numerous other nations with their own tragedies occurring, but the UN's resources are limited, as is their mandate. They are not combat troops, nor should be used to replace combat troops (hence not suggesting Iraq). DRC and Sudan are the two perfect candidates for further UN support, as the mere presence of UN troops inhibits humanitarian atrocities and ethnic violence.

If a new location is to be suggested, what about Kazakhstan and their recent spurt of ethnic conflict? The UN might receive some resistance from Russia as Russia might view it as an infringement on its still perceived "sphere of influence", but they might also be thankful that the UN would take something off their backs so they can focus on Chechnya...

Posted on Sun Sep 26, 2010

Eric H. in Wisconsin writes:

Perhaps give Mexico a hand in defending their public from the Cartels. That way, the Mexican Army could focus more on an offensive strike and try to reclaim full control.

Posted on Sun Sep 26, 2010

Kenneth C. in Virginia writes:

We need to keep our foot print in countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, Emirates and Bosnia to get ready for the new emerging nations such as China, India, Africa to keep our status as a world player.

Posted on Sun Sep 26, 2010

Martina K. in California writes:

Thank you for asking. Before authorizing new peacekeeping missions, the UN should implement fully and make truly operational its existing peacekeeping missions (e.g., Sudan, Congo, Somalia). As the US has declared the situation in Darfur genocide, the UN found "genocidal acts" there, and Sudan's President has outstanding ICC arrest warrants for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and has a 20+ year history of slaughtering his own people, one can easily support Sudan as the top priority. In the future, UNSC should establish peacekeeping missions of a size and with technical, etc. support that makes them capable of succeeding, not just as political band-aids.

Posted on Sun Sep 26, 2010

Pedro A. in Puerto Rico writes:

Where should they be stationed?

#1 Where the absence of UN Forces would result in a World Wide Environmental or Human catastrophe.

#2 Where the greatest “injustice” is being commited to any living thing including the Planet.

#3 Where the lack of presence of UN Forces would result in a Civil War or War amongst World Nations!

Posted on Sun Sep 26, 2010

Darian in Illinois writes:

PALESTINE. Let's end this already. Define the two-state solution, unilaterally plot the map coordinates based on a final security counsel vote, and then put boots on the ground to defend the border - from either side that wants to alter it. Deploy as many troops as possible as quick as possible.

Posted on Sun Sep 26, 2010

Flavius in Virginia writes:

Chicago!

Posted on Sat Sep 25, 2010

Leslie in Texas writes:

Yemen, absolutely! It would also be wise for our government to stop ignoring what is going on in the world and get back to our fundamentals and what really made this nation so great. We need to beef up our military and tighten security and get a handle on illegal immigration.

Posted on Sat Sep 25, 2010

Sujat K. in India writes:

shud be deployed where

1. National armies insufficient,inadequate and not "functional"

2.Shud be deployed where damage from potential damage to world peace and lives is maximum

Hence deploy in areas to prevent Nukes, WMDs, Chemicals weapons from falling in Unsafe hands ( guaurd Nukes ,WMDs, chemical weapons) if they cannot be destroyed outright

2. Deploy in areas where lack of peace affects livelihood of most people leading to war and war crimes in neighbouring nations

more points may be given later

Posted on Sat Sep 25, 2010

Susan M. in California writes:

Sudan. The government of Sudan continues to obstruct the UN's peacekeeping mission there preventing free and unfettered access to civilians at risk and undermining the mission's mandate to protect them. A recent example includes the attack on Tabarat market in Darfur where 50 people were killed and UNAMID's response was delayed for days while waiting for the government's permission to respond. Clearly, the government of Sudan's obstruction is preventing a "clear, credible and achievable mandate" for the UN Mission in Sudan and must be addressed.

Posted on Sat Sep 25, 2010

Goozidi in Georgia (USA) writes:

Stop supporting Israel = main ingredient for peace. tell who really was behind 911. stop mummifying the people.

Posted on Sat Sep 25, 2010

Jake G. in the U.S.A. writes:

The Democratic Republic of Congo. "http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/09/why-the-u-s-should-send-troops-and-spooks-to-the-congo/"

Posted on Fri Sep 24, 2010

Gary P. in Washington writes:

Yemen. Though the country is not a democracy by our standards,they are open to aid, and changeable. All indicators are that this will be the next, and future stronghold for teariest organizations. So far their damage has been minimal, but it is fast becoming the latest refuge from which operations may be launched.

Posted on Fri Sep 24, 2010