My Final Week at the UN

Hard to believe it's been four months, but here I am, down to my last week of working at the UN.  I arrived in March imagining all the wonderful and exciting opportunities I would enjoy.  Today I look back and realize my expectations have been surpassed.

The UN is certainly an organization like no other on earth.  I'm very grateful for having been given the opportunity to be part of it for the past four months.  I've learned a tremendous amount, but the best part of the experience has been, of course, the people.  I reached out to a number of individuals during my time here, and was seldom disappointed.

In my home office, Ombudsman and Mediation Services, I felt as if I could knock on the door of any of the bright, experienced ombudspersons and others to ask any of a number of questions.  From book loans to conversations about the nature of conflict, I am grateful to my UNOMS colleagues for their time, and especially their patience with me.

I was happy to get to know several other interns within the UN system, especially those whom I worked with every day: Valentina, Jing and Abby.  Learning comes in many forms and originates in sometimes unexpected places - some of the best conversations I had were with my fellow interns.

Outside my office, I had the pleasure of meeting with quite a few UN dignitaries for my thesis research on human rights and genocide.  Perhaps the most notable interviews I did were with International Criminal Court prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo and Sudanese Ambassador Daffa-Alla Elhag Ali Osman.  One of the most memorable moments of my internship was sitting at a Security Council meeting and watching these two men spout vitriol at each other from either end of the horseshoe table.

So thank you, one and all, for helping make my United Nations experience rich with learning, laughter, and growth, both professional and personal.  It was an amazing four months.

 

 

 

A Visit To Carnegie Council

I was pleased to be invited recently to a dialogue entitled, "What It Means To Prevent Genocide" at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs in New York.  The guest speaker was Tibi Galis of the Auschwitz Institute.  I enjoyed hearing Mr. Galis speak about the important work the international community is doing to prevent genocide and other mass atrocity crimes.

As I've mentioned in this blog, I feel it's important to not only acknowledge the great work being done, but also to challenge ourselves for continuous improvement.  Toward the end of the segment, I asked Mr. Galis some rather tough questions about why genocide still exists in the world today.  I applaud Mr. Galis' candor in answering my questions and agree that we need to start digging deeper into why governments choose to support human rights abuses.  I am meeting with Sudanese Ambassador Daffa-Alla Elhag Ali Osman this week and plan to ask him some tough questions as well.  Here's a video of the Carnegie Council event where I ask Mr. Galis my questions, followed by a transcript.

QUESTION: My name is Kate Coy, and I am here from the University of Oregon.

The University of Oregon's School of Law has recently launched a genocide initiative to raise awareness about preventing genocide. We had Gregory Stanton come and speak this past April. I'm here at the UN, and unfortunately I missed that talk.

But this looks very familiar. A lot of what's being said is something also that I heard at a talk earlier today at the UN, where Kai Brand-Jacobsen talked about basically these things. His talk was about preventing more violence and genocide, critical approaches to making prevention work. So I think there's a lot of buzz around the topic from a lot of places.

If I can really just kind of call out the elephant in the room, this morning on my way to work I heard about children in Syria being strapped to tanks to prevent them from being blown up. So there's something missing. We're doing a lot of great things, and I appreciate that, but what's the missing link?

TIBI GALIS: I think that the missing link is that we talk a lot about the things we are supposed to do and very often don't really do them. We end up in situations where governments are behaving just like they used to before we had started talking about genocide and mass atrocity prevention. I believe that shows a failure of us to reach out everywhere.

At the same time, looking from the other perspective, we have had the chance to influence the way governments operate and governments relate to their citizens so much more than we have had the capacity to do in the past, thanks to a genocide-prevention responsibility to protect agenda, that many mass atrocities, it can be argued, have been avoided.

I am the first one to call out how bad we are still at preventing mass atrocities and how many crimes happen around us. This is not to say, though, that the work that we need to take forward is not already being done. It takes time. It took time for the convention to become anything else than a piece of paper. It took so much time for it because of the Cold War. It took time for anything that approaches an international criminal justice system to come together. But we are there. We are making serious advances in this field.

But we need to continue pushing and, at the same time, realize that these atrocities that happen today are great indicators of how badly our governments are still doing their job and how much help they need in doing it better.

QUESTION: I think you're right. I think that it's wonderful to acknowledge what—I think it's hard to measure success when success is something that is prevented.

But something was brought up by Mark Simmons, whom you may know, who has done a lot of work in Sudan. He made the comment this afternoon that stuck with me. He said, "The Sudanese governmentdoesn't want peace." That's a real barrier, that state sovereignty issue, where if you have a government that has no interest in preventing genocide, how do you overcome that?

TIBI GALIS: Again, my response would be not a very radical one. Governments don't operate in vacuums. Governments operate in this world that is getting rather small. In order to operate, they have to interact with other governments, with other parts of society. It's time to actually engage with what makes a government change its mind about mass atrocity and genocide.

Mapping efforts beyond the actual mapping and gathering physical data are also expanding into mapping social relationships within each society to see which of the sectors of society can be mobilized to stop that society's government from committing mass atrocities.

At the same time, whenever a government fails to protect its citizens at home, that is a grand failure also of the other governments who were supposed to create an environment in which that failure to protect shouldn't have materialized.

So what I am telling you is it's about engagement, it's about engagement with each and every situation. It's not a small process, it's not an easy process, and it's a resource-intensive process.

But, you know, we have engaged with interstate conflict for centuries, dedicating huge resources for that problem—war. Our wars today don't look the same. It's time that we rededicate resources to the wars that affect us—internal wars, mass atrocities—and we dislocate resources from our defense budgets potentially. This is just an example, but there are so many ways to engage with a government that is criminal.

I hope this answers the question.

Criticisms of the UN - are they valid? Part 2 of 2

In part one of this post, I discussed how I generally believe criticism is important and can be valuable when offered in a spirit conducive to learning and growth.  To answer the title question, "Are criticisms of the UN valid?" - the answer is..."it depends".  The recently-released documentary "UN Me" raised some valid questions, and it also portrayed some outright lies, in my opinion.  Something I've learned as part of the world's largest bureaucracy over the past three months is that sometimes its very difficult to discern fact from fiction, even from the inside.

I'm very proud to be part of the UN.  And although I am part of the UN, I'm only part of one small subset of the massive body that is the United Nations.  So instead of making sweeping judgments about facets of the UN of which I have no experience, I feel it is more fair to discuss criticisms of the UN based on my direct experience in the Office of the Ombudsman and Mediation Services (UNOMS).

I arrived at the UN three months ago with high expectations: in addition to interning at an organization that sets the global standard for conflict resolution, the office in which I was chosen to work is full of professionals who assist in resolving conflicts between UN staff members.  "Oh boy", I thought, "they'll show me how its done," especially in terms of the interpersonally-based office conflict that's such a constant source of angst in most office environments.  I expected to see exemplary conflict resolution skills dripping off my colleagues around every corner, reinforcing a working environment free from interpersonal strife.  Obviously, this is not realistic.

An important fact had been critically missing from my thought process...my colleagues are human, too.  I work with some of the brightest, most experienced professionals in my field at UNOMS, and even they struggle with "impact versus intent" and how to have a "difficult conversation."  There is tension in the office at times, and I've learned that "professionalism" is subjective, and can often be culturally dependent.

One of the most interesting parts of working in a truly international office is that, for the first time in my white privileged American life, I'm exposed to perceptions individuals from other countries have of Americans.  I love that.  I never knew how or why Americans are often perceived as being informal or inpatient - I now have a much better understanding.

I accepted this internship knowing parts of it would be a struggle for me, namely having to identify as an intern.  I left the glass-walled office at my own fitness club in the idyllic little town of Cottage Grove, Oregon for a dimly-lit, windowless cubicle with a boss looking over my shoulder at a busy office in midtown Manhattan, respectively.  The transition has been more difficult than I imagined it would be.  There have been days I wanted to get on the next flight home.  But as I enter the final weeks of this experience, I feel a renewal of gratitude for this opportunity, struggles included.

The criticisms I have regarding my experience at UNOMS aren't really specific to this office, or to the UN.  The issues are ubiquitous.  And they mostly come down to people simply being people.  The strongest commonality I can decipher between causes of conflict in the office environment of the UN and general conflict between people in everyday social settings is this - we are poor communicators.  Good communication takes time and it takes effort, and we so often lack both.  Although that's obviously an oversimplification, its given me a renewed sense of purpose and pride in my course of study.  Much of what I'm learning as a Conflict and Dispute Resolution (CRES) Master's student at Oregon is how to coach others to overcome conflict in a positive manner.  Conflict is ubiquitous, and if we want to, we can learn how to "do it" better.

There are no fast and easy solutions to overcoming conflict.  As my conflict resolution skills continue to improve, I try to remain ever cognizant of how my actions may impact on others.  I do my best to understand and take responsibility for my part in the conflict.  I strive to stay open-minded and suspend judgment, then make the decision to have the "difficult conversation," if warranted.  I don't think becoming a perfect conflict resolver is the point (or is even possible); its the learning and growth that matters most.  Although I surely have a long way to go, a day of increased knowledge is a day of success.  Viewed in this light, every single day of my internship has been a success of its own.

I'm very grateful for the knowledge I've gained as a CRES student over the past year, and for the knowledge I've gained from my colleagues at the Ombuds and Mediation office at the United Nations.  Thanks to all of you for your patience with me.

Hiking in New Jersey

Hiking in New Jersey

Criticisms of the UN - are they valid? Part 1 of 2

View of UNHQ from the East River

A core value of mine is to speak up when I feel I have something important to say about an issue I care about, and to do so in the spirit of "appreciative inquiry."  I am genuinely curious about the way the world works and I strive to gain answers to my questions in a productive and respectful manner.  I've learned that it's really more about how you say it, not what you say.  In the conflict resolution field we discuss this in terms of "impact versus intent;" indeed, at the heart of many interpersonal disputes lies a difference between people's perceptions of the same event.  In this and my next blog post, I will weigh the validity of external criticisms of the UN, and offer some of my own from my perspective as a UN "insider/outsider."

View from UNHQ across the East River

The United Nations is no stranger to criticism.  I've heard everything from, at best, the UN is useless, and at worst, is a haven for officials to commit crimes.  As with most things, I think the truth is somewhere in between.  UN officials would likely be the first to admit that the organization is not perfect; no organization is.  I believe that because officials acknowledge the UN's shortcomings and are working to improve them, half the battle has already been won.  That being said, there is much work to be done.

The fab four UNOMS interns: Abby, Jing, Valentina, and I at Bryant Park

Recall the last time you got in a fight with your partner: the hot emotions, raised voices, perhaps a desire to get as far away from him or her as possible.  During conflict we tend to show enmity for even those closest to us.  This enmity may be manifested with thoughts such as, "s/he can't do anything right" or "s/he never appreciates anything I do."  If the conflict resolves positively, these feelings of enmity fade and things return to "normal" (if the conflict doesn't resolve or resolve well you may instead be headed for divorce).  My point is that during the conflict, it's very hard to recall the wonderful things your partner has done for you and the reasons you are with them.

My friend Valentina at UNHQ

I see this same pattern happening in the relationship between the people of the world and the UN, with one important distinction - with the UN there's rarely a return to "normal."  As the world is in a perpetual state of conflict, and because we view the role of the UN to keep international peace, we often only see the UN as failing to fill this role.  Just like during the argument with our spouse, we forget about all the great things the UN is doing in the world and about the numerous other roles the UN plays, and plays well.  Like bringing food, water and shelter to millions of people who would otherwise go without, researching and maintaining data on every culture in every country on every continent on earth including maps and geographical information unavailable anywhere else, creating a forum for thought leaders from across the globe to come together and express their ideas...the list goes on and on.

The fab four with our colleague Susannah in front of Grand Central

To that last point, take a second to think about even just the logistics involved in successfully managing such an event - creating a welcoming environment for literally every country in the world to discuss ideas in the same room.  A key aspect to success in this environment is language - obviously there are hundreds of languages spoken by those participating in UN functions.  The UN has six official languages - English, French, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, and Arabic - in which every meeting is translated into.  Translators sit in sound booths in every conference room, hear what is being said, and immediately translate it for real time broadcast into the five language not being spoken, not only to the entire room, but often to the world (many meetings available live at http://webtv.un.org/).  The abilities of the amazing translation team hard at work everyday at the UN is just one of many "small" things I've gained appreciation for during my time here.

My friends Valentina and Jing on Valentina's last day

While I believe it is important to criticize, I believe it is equally important to do so in a constructive manner and for the purpose of attempting to foster learning and growth.  Last Friday a documentary entitled "UN Me" was released by a first time filmmaker.  I viewed the film and was disappointed.  I was disappointed not because a main purpose of the film was to point out the UN's shortcomings, but because that was the ONLY purpose of the film, from my perspective.  From taking facts and interviews out of context to bordering on outright lying, the filmmaker was clearly ignorant about UN culture and history in many ways.  And here's the real problem with this type of criticism - the average viewer doesn't have the knowledge to separate fact from fiction, respectively.  Had the filmmaker pointed out flaws then offered solutions, or spent any amount of time on all the great things the UN does, I would be much more supportive of the film.

In the next post I will discuss my experience at the UN from a more personal perspective and offer what I can in terms of solutions to issues raised.

What the United Nations and Anytime Fitness have in common

Frequently, people ask me why I made such a "drastic career change" from being the owner of the Anytime Fitness franchise in Cottage Grove, Oregon to starting a Master's degree in Conflict Resolution and interning at the United Nations.  This question surprised me at first because, from my perspective, it’s not a career change at all.  My goal has always been to live a healthy and happy life, and to help others to do the same.  Exercise and peaceful conflict resolution may be more closely related than you've previously considered.

Let's first look at exercise.  By now it's no secret that we all need exercise for good health.  And not just once in a while, or for just a month or a year.  For the rest of our lives.  On most days of the week.  That's one of the realities of life, as I see it.  Exercise, like brushing our teeth, is something we have to do for good health.  And not just physical health, mental health is impacted by exercise as well.  Regular exercisers have higher self-esteem, sleep better, miss less days of and are more productive at work, and have more energy to spend playing with their kids or having sex.  (Yes, regular exercisers have more sex).  Again, you've likely heard this all before.  I'm going to take it a step further and state that, based on my observations; people who exercise regularly are generally happier people. 

If all this is true - regular exercisers lead happier, more productive lives - why isn't everyone doing it?  Well, because exercising regularly is a hard thing to do.  It takes time, extra effort and self-discipline.  Let's face it; not exercising is just so much easier.

Now let's turn to the subject of conflict.  Like exercise, conflict is a reality of life.  Unlike exercise, which has a positive connotation, conflict has a negative one.  People generally hate conflict and avoid it when possible.  Conflict also has numerous meanings.  It can be everything from feeling frustrated at your boss for never acknowledging the good work you do, to religious groups killing in order to gain control of land.  For the sake of this conversation, I want to think about the former, so-called interpersonal conflict.

Each of us experiences interpersonal conflict, likely on most days of the week.  In your family, at the workplace, in the community - this type of conflict is ubiquitous.  It may increase our stress levels, causing us to lose sleep, and have less energy.  (And you know what that means...less sex).  In general, it has a negative impact on our lives...which is exactly why we try to avoid it.  But here's the reality - interpersonal conflict is unavoidable.  Unless you decide to live alone in a cave, you will never be able to go through life conflict-free.  So why don't we accept the fact that we can't avoid conflict and instead focus on how to handle it in a productive yet peaceful manner?

Here are some possible answers to that question.  

1. In contemporary American society, non-confrontation is more accepted than confrontation.  The status quo supports serving your neighbor with a lawsuit over simply talking to him.  Why?  There are lots of psychological theories that help explain this that I'll save for another blog post.  Suffice it to say, confronting someone about a concern you have with them can be a very scary, and risky, thing to do.  

2. We don't have the tools we need to communicate in a manner which would aid in resolving the conflict.  My junior and high school American education taught me how to speak English well; I know a little bit about history too.  But I can't recall ever having a required class that helped me relate to other people.  A class that taught me skills like suspending my judgment until I have all the facts or striving to see things from another's perspective.  This may be most important knowledge we offer our children, yet, most adults aren't taught these skills.
3. Like exercise, handling conflict peacefully and productively is a hard thing to do.  It takes time, extra effort and self-discipline.  Let's face it; not trying is just so much easier.

Think about a time you felt angry at someone for something they did, and it caused you to treat them differently.  You felt justified in your new treatment of them because, in your mind, you were right and they were wrong.  (In their mind the exact opposite was true).  Then, one day you learned something that you didn't previously know, and it turned out your anger was misplaced.  Do you remember the feeling that washed over you after learning what really happened?  How did you react?  Did how you behaved toward them during the conflict cause you to feel embarrassment?  Were you concerned that your future relationship might be affected?  Did you regret that you hadn't just talked to them about it and straightened things out from the beginning?  Why didn't you?  

Now think about a time when you chose to address a conflict you were having with someone that resulted in a better understanding of what had happened.  You left the conversation free of the trepidation you went in with.  Not only were you relieved that the conflict had been resolved, you were proud of yourself for handling it the way you did.  You saved yourself weeks of damaging stress.  As a consequence, you were happier and healthier.

The way I see it, handling conflict in a peaceful and productive manner is not only a good idea, it's imperative for living a healthy life.  Here is where I draw the parallel between conflict resolution and exercise.  For years people thought exercise was a good idea - something you could choose to do if you wanted to.  We now know that exercise is required for optimum health.  Likewise, resolving our issues in a peaceful manner is not just a good idea; peaceful and productive conflict management is required for optimum health.  It's an idea some professionals in the conflict resolution field call positive conflict.

Seemingly an oxymoron, positive conflict is the idea that we should not only accept that conflict is inevitable, we should use it to our advantage.  Conflict can act as an optimum opportunity for learning and growth if we choose to approach it as such.  A nascent idea even in academia, moving to a culture of positive conflict will require an entire psychological paradigm shift.  Discussing it on this blog post is proof that the shift has already begun.

So, you see, the United Nations and Anytime Fitness aren't so disparate after all.  I opened an Anytime Fitness club in order to encourage others to live a healthier, and therefore happier, life.  I'm pursuing a Master's degree in Conflict Resolution and working at the United Nations for exactly the same reason.  There is no easy answer to what makes for a happy life, but based on my experience, exercise and peaceful conflict resolution are two key elements.

I will leave you with one of the most clever and unique things I've seen in New York...the Times Square "Free Hugs" guy...

"The UN was not created to take humanity to heaven, but to save it from hell." -Former UNSG Dag Hammarskjold

This photo hangs on the wall at UNHQ.  What are your thoughts about this photo?  

Since becoming interested in human rights as a Peace Corps volunteer in West Africa five years ago, I've spent a lot of time thinking about situations like the one portrayed in this photo.  For me, it conjures images of voices being silenced, lives being snubbed out - the lack of human rights.  Today, more than 60 years since unanimous ratification of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/, we continue to live in a world in which crimes against humanity are happening every day.  Why?

I wonder about the boy in this photo - where he was born, what his home life was like.  What is he fighting for?  Is he part of a militia sanctioned by a corrupt government who is sent to rape and murder villagers in their homes, or is he a member of a rebel group attempting to overthrow that corrupt government and restore peace to his village?  Whatever the answer, I think it’s reasonable to assume it’s something that affects his daily life.

Does it affect your daily life?  Probably not.  Like most Americans, you are more likely to be concerned with getting your kids to school on time with clean teeth and deciding whether to have fish or chicken for dinner, respectfully.  You probably don't give much thought to people being subjected to having their homes burned and children forcibly taken from them.  Why?  I think Maslow helps answer that question.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs provides a foundation upon which much of social psychology rests.  At the bottom of the triangle lay our most basic needs: food, water, sleep, etc.  As we elevate toward the pinnacle, we reach a place where self-actualization is paramount - the need to solve problems, be creative, act morally and the like.

From my perspective, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is about ensuring that all people have the opportunity to seek self-actualization.  Many of us will never become self-actualized, but the point is we should have the chance.  Self-actualization is not about money or fame.  It's about your relationship with the world around you.  Think about where you see yourself in Maslow's hierarchy.  Think about why you're there, and how you got there.

Although it’s true that individuals born in every country in the world may have the opportunity to become self-actualized, I believe where you were born has enormous effect on your chances.  And because I'm of the belief that we don't have any say in where we're born, those of us born into privilege should be very grateful.  Seeking self-actualization is a privileged place to be.  It’s a place I'm doubtful the boy in the top photo will ever enjoy.

I believe in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  The Declaration should not represent some esoteric idea of an unattainable Utopian society - if we think of it that way that's all it will be.  I believe we need to actively promote the ideas of the Declaration.  Protecting human rights for all individuals should be the most important challenge we face.

We can no longer sit back and wait for peace to come.  If we want it, we must actively pursue it.  Each of us has a role to play.  The UN has a role, President Obama has his role, you have your role, and I have mine.  It's time we stop thinking of world peace as somebody else's problem - holding on to the naive viewpoint that we are disempowered.  Given the vast intelligence and creativity of the human race, I am convinced we have the ability to protect human rights in every country in the world.  It’s a matter of will.

However, this is just my opinion.  There are some who would argue that we don’t have the ability to end human rights violations – that if we did, we would have done it already.  What do you think?  Do we fail at protecting human rights because we don’t have the ability, or because we don’t have the will?

United Nations 101

The United Nations was formed in the wake of World War II in an effort to prevent another world war from occurring in the future.  The UN is commonly known for facilitating cooperation international law and security, economic development, social progress, and human rights.  Ultimately, the UN hopes to achieve world peace.

The structure of the UN is quite complex due to the size of the organization. The constituents of the UN are the countries of the world - 193 of them - and they all (literally) get a seat at the table.  Deemed "Member States", the General Assembly Hall at UNHQ in New York is where representatives from each nation meet to discuss myriad international issues.  The GA mostly handles economic and social topics including pursuing the Millennium Development Goals http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/.  You can check out what's happening on a day-to-day basis at the UN by visiting www.un.org then clicking on UN Journal on the lower left: http://www.un.org/en/documents/journal.asp

The UN General Assembly Hall

Despite the wonderful progress and positive impact the UN is having on the world from an economic and social perspective, the news media is much more likely to cover security, human rights and international law concerns.  These types of concerns are handled by the UN Security Council whose primary accountability is maintaining international peace and security (no sweat, right?!).

The UN Security Council

The Security Council has 15 total members: five permanent and ten non-permanent.  The permanent members are Russia, China, the UK, France and the US, and each holds veto power.  That means that if 14 members vote in favor of a resolution, it only takes one permanent member to vote against it and it won't be passed.  I imagine it must be difficult for members of the Security Council to balance what they think is best for the international community and the interests of their respective states.  The next time you see the headline, "The UN Security Council failed to act," dig a little deeper and discover why you think the Security Council members weren't able to reach consensus.


The seeming incongruity of state sovereignty and international peace is a topic that's on my mind a lot these days.  Think about your next-door neighbor: his property is conspicuously definitive from yours.  Can he do whatever he wants on his property?  "Sure", you may think, "it's his life and he's on his own property, who am I to interfere?"  You and your neighbor may likely think this of each other until some incident occurs that could negatively impact you.  Say, he's out sunbathing in the nude.  It may sound silly, but the same basic conflict dynamics are at play between you and your neighbor as they are between two neighboring countries (although it's much harder to see nude sunbathers across international lines).

So what do you do about your nude sunbathing neighbor?  You have some sort of recourse, don't you?  You can go talk to him and let him know what's bothering you.  He may be of the opinion that it's his property and he can do what he wants - his actions aren't harming anyone.  If you aren't able to reach a resolution via direct conversation, you could try enlisting help from a neutral third party by calling the experienced professionals at Community Mediation Services in Eugene, Oregon (*wink*).  Barring a solution from that, you can call the police and lodge a complaint.  You can check the law to ensure the appropriate regulations are in place to protect you, and appeal to your local government for change if they're not.  The point is, you can do something.

How does this conflict scenario play out at an international level?  Disputes between bordering countries are often made up of the same general ingredients: one group does something they perceive as benign and the other group perceives as offensive.  Frequently, a conversation between the two respective governments yields no resolution.  Then what?  Who do the leaders of these nations look to for help in resolving their dispute?  Who makes the laws that countries have to abide by?  And who enforces the law when its broken?  Although numerous organizations - governmental and non - work to provide answers to these questions, the truth is its very difficult to both make and enforce international laws.  The United Nations is viewed by many as the organization ultimately responsible for resolving all types of international conflict.

Despite this, the United Nations does not have any real policing power.  I frequently talk to people who see UN "troops" on the news flooding into a conflict area with guns on their hips, and they assume the UN has a well-trained and fortified army at their disposal.  That's not the case.  The UN does employ Peacekeepers who are sent to conflict areas to help maintain peace and security, especially in the aftermath of a war, but there are some important things to know about the limits of the UN Peacekeeping mandate.  First, UN Peacekeepers do not use force unless their lives are in danger.  In other words, they are not there to fight or perpetuate war; weapons, if carried, are for purposes of self-defense only.  Peacekeepers also must be invited in - the UN does not just send troops into areas without the informed consent of the authorities.  Peacekeepers are also impartial - they remain on the side of international peace and security and do not advocate for any one party.

My interest in international conflict and human rights is extrapolated from my curiosity about what you think is ok and what's not ok for your neighbor to do.  In other words, where is the line between your neighbor's sovereignty and your discomfort?  If you happened to glance out your window one time and see your nude sunbathing neighbor, would it cause you to take action?  What if your 6 year old daughter alerted you to the situation...would that change how you choose to respond?

What if you were to witness your neighbor acting in a drastically more heinous manner, like committing acts of rape or murder?  If you knew the person living at the end of your block was performing such a despicable act, would you do something to stop it?  What about someone in the next town?   A neighboring state?  Here's where confusion sets in for me - why we don't take action when people are beaten to death and raped in other countries.  This is happening in the world right now.  Is it that distance somehow softens our demand for justice, or do we default back to sovereignty?

Like most organizations, I believe the UN does the best it can with the tools its been given.  In the face of highly egregious human rights violations like rape and murder, a Security Council resolution can only go so far.  It is here that I believe the international community needs the most improvement.  Because no international police presence really exists, who is responsible for enforcing SC resolutions relating to human rights violations?

I'll leave you with a picture outside UNHQ at the famous non-violence artwork, aka "Knotted Gun".  Please contact me if you have any ideas for how to answer some of the questions posed in this post.  Thanks for reading.