There is a general impression in the Middle East, and indeed elsewhere, that the UN is some kind of beacon of hope and righteousness as the weak and defenceless ger crushed beneath the evil US-Israeli war machine. On balance, I’d rather trust my life to the US or Israelis than any UN peacekeeping force.

All I can say now is that what troops do on the ground are – I believe – more a reflection of the prevalent culture within their own country’s armed forces than they are to do with the UN. If the ‘home’ army is professional, then by and large, the soldiers on UN duty will be professional also. If the ‘home’ army is seen as a source of patronage, of making money, then troops on UN duty will use their postings to their own personal advantage.

Admittedly, the UN is almost completely ineffective in opposing bad behaviour from the troops of contributing states. This is mostly because of weaknesses within the UN chain of command (effectively, there is none when it comes to discipline), but also in large part due to the well grounded fear in the UN that if they criticise those few states who are prepared to send troops on peacekeeping missions, they’ll have no-one left to run those peacekeeping missions.

(Sorry Andy, I realy hate the behaviour of the UN, although I appreciated a lot of the peacekeepers do good work.)