united nations

Is your argument that having no external force in Haiti would have been better than having the UN?

There was humanitarian aid and independent non UN affiliated missions in Haiti; you're presenting a false dichotomy

Talking specifically about the function of stabilisation through policing / security rather than humanitarian aid work.

Yeah I have to agree with Mordy there

Having regional partners that have some skin in the game intervene is generally better than having "peacekeepers" from far flung places with possibly little or no experience, I can't disagree with that.

Which regional partners did you have in mind?

imo literally any discrete sovereign nation would have more accountability

Yes, if there's one word that tends to characterise military presence in foreign countries, it's 'accountability'.

There are huge problems with discreet sovereign nations performing these roles. Some are logistical - taking on the responsibility of putting 5k - 10k police officers and soldiers into a difficult and dangerous situation would be close to impossible for any of Haiti's neighbours. Some are cultural - there are not that many Francophone countries to choose and having a Anglo-led, predominantly white US/UK force causes its own challenges. Some are political - France going in on their own to a former colonial vassal against a background of chaos, mass evictions and a hugely divisive election would have been questioned.

Having a force made up of European, Francophone African, North American and Asian soldiers with no obvious political agenda might not be perfect but no solution would have been.

https://twitter.com/AP/status/852084955219996672

BBC News - United States dilutes UN rape-in-war resolution
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48028773

Russia and China abstained for reasons the press don't seem to care about enough to explain.