What would you do if your country wasn’t powerful enough to defend yourself, your family, and your friends? Would you leave or fight back? The United Nation peacekeepers make it so you wouldn’t have to do either. The United Nations was established right after World War II originally made up of fifty countries and now is a coalition of one hundred ninety three countries throughout the world that came together to help change and protect the world. In order to protect the world they created an organization called Peacekeepers. Peacekeepers have to ability to help create and then monitor peace throughout areas that are experiencing conflicts, by assisting the combatants by aiding them in war efforts. Most countries that are a part of
…show more content…
According to Daniel Renwick, a member of the Council on Foreign Relationships or the CFR he states that the United Nation reimburses the countries that provide troops about one thousand dollars per troop. Daniel Renwick is not that reliable, because although he works first hand with these problems writing and then relaying them to the public, he adds some of his own opinions, which makes you believe that he might be gaining something from writing this. While William Durch, Scott Gilmore, and Michael Carnahan, all three are economists at the PDT or Peace Dividend Trust who worked together to publish a report titled Economic Development Impacts of Peacekeeping. The report goes on to state that there are other ways this money for peacekeepers could be useful. Instead of spending anywhere from three hundred million to one billion dollars in just one mission that money could be going towards creating a safer environment and creating jobs. The reason most of the countries are in turmoil is, because their economic backbone isn’t stable enough. Even though this is a better source then Daniel Renwick, and they don 't get anything from writing this, since they work for a non-profit organization, this still isn’t reliable because of all of the opinions they put into their paper even though they back it up with facts and …show more content…
In nineteen ninety nine, an average of one hundred and twenty four thousand dollars was spent on missions. In spite of current events Peacekeepers are using less money, since they are not receiving as much as they used. Surprisingly, The price change does not come from a cut in salary for troops, since they have a fixed amount of income; it affected the variables of each mission. Meaning the equipment they brought into each of their operation, it could be anything from weaponry to vehicles. This could also come from the lack of operations take in the past years. To fix this problem the United Nations created a five-year plan called Global Field Support Strategy or GFSS. This plan started in two thousand ten and ends later in two thousand fifteen, this plan is suppose to strengthen and reshape Peacekeeping within, the United Nations. This a very dependable source, because of all the facts and references she uses. Although she doesn’t have a background in economics she is a very respected writer known for her other works in current events throughout the
According to Daniel Renwick, a member of the Council on Foreign Relationships or the CFR he states that the United Nation reimburses the countries that provide troops about one thousand dollars per troop. Daniel Renwick is not that reliable, because although he works first hand with these problems writing and then relaying them to the public, he adds some of his own opinions, which makes you believe that he might be gaining something from writing this. While William Durch, Scott Gilmore, and Michael Carnahan, all three are economists at the PDT or Peace Dividend Trust who worked together to publish a report titled Economic Development Impacts of Peacekeeping. The report goes on to state that there are other ways this money for peacekeepers could be useful. Instead of spending anywhere from three hundred million to one billion dollars in just one mission that money could be going towards creating a safer environment and creating jobs. The reason most of the countries are in turmoil is, because their economic backbone isn’t stable enough. Even though this is a better source then Daniel Renwick, and they don 't get anything from writing this, since they work for a non-profit organization, this still isn’t reliable because of all of the opinions they put into their paper even though they back it up with facts and …show more content…
In nineteen ninety nine, an average of one hundred and twenty four thousand dollars was spent on missions. In spite of current events Peacekeepers are using less money, since they are not receiving as much as they used. Surprisingly, The price change does not come from a cut in salary for troops, since they have a fixed amount of income; it affected the variables of each mission. Meaning the equipment they brought into each of their operation, it could be anything from weaponry to vehicles. This could also come from the lack of operations take in the past years. To fix this problem the United Nations created a five-year plan called Global Field Support Strategy or GFSS. This plan started in two thousand ten and ends later in two thousand fifteen, this plan is suppose to strengthen and reshape Peacekeeping within, the United Nations. This a very dependable source, because of all the facts and references she uses. Although she doesn’t have a background in economics she is a very respected writer known for her other works in current events throughout the