Intelligence Collection at the United Nations for Peacekeeping Operations - Essay Example

? Commentary on the Paper "Intelligence Collection at the United Nations For Peacekeeping Operations” Word Count 045 (4 pages) I. Introduction This piece will address a total of three elements in analyzing the seminar paper "Intelligence Collection at the United Nations For Peace Keeping Operations”: 1) the strengths of the seminar paper and how well it addresses the topic; 2) the weaknesses of the seminar paper; and 3) suggestions for improvement. II. The Strengths of the Seminar Paper and How Well It Addresses the Topic It’s important that the UN have some type of intelligence-gathering functions. However, intelligence can severely limit the main function of the United Nations, which is to delegate international relations. Having intelligence definitely “impedes the effectiveness of fulfilling [the UN’s] goals” (“Intelligence Collection at the United Nations for Peace Keeping Operations,” 2011, pp. 4). It is beneficial that member states do share information, to some degree. Of course, it’s important that such information is shared to the benefit of the United Nations. This paper accurately points out, however, that US Secretary of State Colin Powell introduced WMD as being valid intelligence, which led the United States to engage in a war that lasted eight (8) years and cost $700 billion dollars. Breakdown in communication between ONUC forces and the civilian leadership in the Congo due to interference of UN intelligence-gathering is even yet another piece of evidence that intelligence-gathering by the UN may not be a smart idea, because, in this case, the UN member countries were not willing to supply intelligence to the military. In another situation in Haiti, there was incorrect information being disseminated from informants, and the paper uses this piece of information to support the fact that the UN should not be involved in collecting intelligence for peacekeeping operations. One of the greatest difficulties the UN has, however, is to strike a delicate balance between spying and open secrets. “For the UN, a great dilemma arises when the information is gathered and kept secretly, since the world body is dedicated to transparency, impartiality and the rule of law” (Dorn, 2011, pp. 4).” Knowing this, it is important to realize how difficult it can be, and is, for the United Nations to continue such operations—not only when such an unreliable piece of information was announced in front of the UN by Colin Powell—but because of the fact that the UN must remain transparent while conducting covert operations. It doesn’t make much sense. III. The Weaknesses of the Seminar Paper First off, in terms of technical aspects, there are some minor grammatical errors on the title page and in the introduction. To begin with, “peacekeeping” is one word, not two separate words. The references or bibliography page also needs to be overhauled, as there is much incorrect referencing structure. Also, the in-text citations for Harvard require more work. Details will be discussed in the Suggestions for Improvement section. Secondly, one has to be realistic about what intelligence is, which is deception. Nations that are not part of the United Nations are game to be spied on. The UN cannot simply rely on informal information from member states. Secretary of State Colin Powell’s information which he introduced before members of the world community in the UN was not good intelligence. This is one of the greatest pieces of evidence why the UN should not get involved in the intelligence community, if there are any. Colin Powell declared, “Numerous human sources tell us that the Iraqis are moving not just documents and hard drives, but weapons of mass destruction, to keep them from being found by inspectors” (Rockefeller, 2009, pp. 40). Later this information was refuted. “The question of to what extent Iraq could rebuild and reconstitute its WMD program in four years (1998-2002) is the real issue” (Mauroni, 2006, pp. 116). At the time, however, everyone believed Powell’s assertions because he (and the Bush Administration) were seen as credible sources in the ‘war on terror.’ “Bush and other administration officials spoke with absolute certainly that WMD existed…” (Lusane, 2006, pp. 108). Unfortunately, not only was Colin Powell wrong, but this entire fiasco about WMD made the United States look incompetent at best, and at worst, predatory. The U.S. would later be revealed to be predatory, as it was suggested by some that going into Iraq was in the works earlier than 2003 when Iraq was invaded by the United States with the carte blanche approval of President George W. Bush. IV. Suggestions for Improvement The paper should take more of an argumentative, rather than an informative, stance. The issue is not so much whether the events discussed actually happened, but how it can be argued that intelligence either should be gathered or that it shouldn’t. Additionally, in terms of argumentativeness, there is really not much evidence that the UN can still have ‘clean hands’ while engaging in intelligence collection. This section needs to have more evidence. Really, it is difficult to compound the fact that the United Nations cannot remain neutral in the face of collecting intelligence. It should also be noted that most of the money that goes into funding UN peacekeeping operations is funding from the United States, which further taints the UN’s ability to remain neutral while performing various supposedly covert operations. One of the more pressing problems, however, is that this paper is in dire need of a clear thesis. It needs to be an argumentative paper, not an informative essay. The in-text citation style after a sentence in quotes, should most definitely appear as follows, which would then be followed with a period: (Weserfield, 1996, pp. X). One more example, in favor of the argument that the UN needs good intelligence if it is going to be involved in the spy game—besides the Congolese and Haitian situations—included the huge, gapingly obvious error made by Colin Powell in his assessment that Iraq had WMD. V. Conclusion Here, the following topics have been discussed in the analysis of the seminar paper “"Intelligence Collection at the United Nations For Peace Keeping Operations”: 1) the strengths of the seminar paper and how well it discusses the topic at hand; 2) the weaknesses that are inherent in the seminar paper; and 3) what kind of suggestions could be made for the paper’s improvement. It is important that all of these elements can be properly digested by the reader—and, if necessary, the writer—in order to analyze how the paper can be reworked in order to make it a more effective and well-organized piece. BIBLIOGRAPHY Dorn, AW, 2011. The cloak and the blue beret: the limits of intelligence-gathering in UN peacekeeping. Retrieved 23 Oct 2011 at: . Intelligence collection at the United Nations for peace keeping operations, 2011. UK: Digitization and Intelligence Collection. Lusane, C, 2006. Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice: foreign policy, race, and the new American century. US: Greenwood Publishing Group. Mauroni, AJ, 2006. Where are the WMD’s? US: Naval Institute Press. Rockefeller, JD, 2009. Report on whether public statements regarding Iraq by U. S. government officials were substantiated by intelligence information together with additional and minority views. US: DIANE Publishing. Read More