I appreciate the desire to make the UN a truly global effort, but maybe there should be some filter where peacekeepers only help at home or in countries worse off. Otherwise, we're not only raising the risk of incidents like this and other peacekeeper scandals, but also taking soldiers away from vulnerable populations at home that already need their help.
PK is economically more attractive for a poor country with an oversized army than a rich country with a relatively small army.
Sure, but why would the rest of the world be interested in peacekeepers from incompetent countries who are being fobbed off on the UN to reduce military bills at home? Was Haiti better off after receiving these guys?
On the other hand, deploying the nepalese soldiers equips them with practical experience (some of which might well have come in handy after the 2015 quake), and I assume they are fairly well paid on a UN mission too. Injecting some cash into Nepal is not a bad thing.
>Peacekeeping soldiers are paid by their own Governments according to their own national rank and salary scale. Countries volunteering uniformed personnel to peacekeeping operations are reimbursed by the UN at a standard rate, approved by the General Assembly, of a little over US$1,332 per soldier per month.
I would suspect this is fairly lucrative.
It was also in the Clinton emails that were released (Chelsea Clinton was there and writing to her parents)
"Speaking of censuses, the UN also needs a census of itself and its materials
in country - including of the peacekeeper bases outside Port Au Prince.
For example, we drove by 2 bases on the way to Cange and there were
collectively, I would estimate, more than a hundred trucks and buses just
sitting between the two, as well as at least 800 Napali soldiers (according to
locals) laying effectively fallow - and I don't think anyone expects an
outbreak of violence on the Central Plateau in the near future so even if they
and their colleagues are deployed under UN Charter Chapter 6, surely
preserving the peace could be interpreted to work with the settlements? At
the least, their hardware could be used more effectively in Port Au Prince."
Take their travel expenses and peacekeeping salaries and repurpose those as a practical domestic training program or foreign aid.
I only propose this as an alternative to the status quo, which apparently features useful practical lessons about sanitation, but only through trial and error in someone else's backyard.
There could also be some benefit for these soldiers. It must be quite the learning experience for a Nepalese soldier to work in Haiti. I know there have been numerous problems with such deployments, but there's an upside to it even if it's hard to measure.
> a lot of them are subsistence farmers
These statements directly contradict each other.