Get ready for some head-scratching as we dive into United Nations Security Council Resolution 697. This gem came out of the political woodwork on May 14, 1991. Signed and sealed in New York City, Resolution 697 mostly concerned with extending the mandate of the United Nations Angola Verification Mission II (UNAVEM II) due to the tricky situation in Angola. The who’s who involved were Angola, the U.N., and a bunch of indifferent countries nodding perfunctorily at meetings. But let’s ask ourselves—would you extend a mission without addressing the root of the problem? That's like putting a Band-Aid on a broken leg.
Political Theater at Its Best: Here’s a resolution that’s more about playing politics than achieving anything tangible. It’s the same old story—make a show of diplomacy without rocking the boat too much. Helping Angola was less about strategy and more about trying not to look bad on the world stage. Resolution 697 just extends the mission for another six months, without addressing the bigger issues.
The Typical Bureaucratic Rabbit Hole: You've got to love how the U.N. just extends mandates. Because why not keep on doing what hasn't worked already? Instead of seriously reevaluating the mission, the Security Council just decides to roll it over like last Sunday's lottery numbers. A classic case of bureaucratic procrastination if you ask me.
No Real Solutions: Rather than seriously addressing the conflict, Resolution 697 opted for the diplomatic equivalent of sweeping the mess under the rug. You want to talk peacekeeping missions? The lack of accountability and actual progress is a running theme. Instead of setting a bold course, the U.N. decided it was business as usual.
Peacekeeping, But Not Really Keeping: Sure, peacekeeping missions sound noble, but how about we hold these mandates accountable for results? UNAVEM II was part of what many could argue was a systemic failure in keeping peace. Extending this mission did nothing but keep lots of people in Boardrooms launching endless debates.
The Cookie Cutter Solution: If governmental organizations had a signature move, the ‘extension of mandate’ would be it. It's the simple choice. Why rethink? Just extend and pretend! It’s almost as effective as telling someone to 'walk it off' after they’ve sprained an ankle.
Let’s Talk Cost: Resolution 697 might not mention dollars, but every extension bleeds resources. Peacekeeping isn’t cheap, and neither are endless meetings in plush offices across the globe. Imagine how those resources could have made a tangible difference directly on the ground.
All Bark and No Bite: Ever wonder why U.N. resolutions often lack teeth? Because they’re filled with ambiguity, leaving too much room for interpretation and not enough for action. Resolution 697 was no different: big on talk, low on enforcement.
The Typical Runaround: Rather than pivot strategies or revamp approaches, the U.N. is known for repeated efforts that lead nowhere. Extending mandates is their tried-and-true way of buying more time without upsetting the status quo. The cure to the status quo conundrum? Shift the entire system towards accountability.
The Ignored Impacts: It’s easy to see why so many feel these resolutions serve more as feel-good measures than actionable solutions. What was somebody doing for Angola? A lot less than you might hope. The root issues remained unaddressed; they just got another piece of paper to file.
Are We Surprised?: The U.N. loves resolutions. Who doesn’t enjoy a bit of lengthy documentation to read by the fireplace? But does Resolution 697 shift the needle? Hardly. These resolutions often become textual placeholders, allowing everyone to argue they've done something when they've done next to nothing.
So there you have it. United Nations Security Council Resolution 697 is the perfect example of international diplomacy that leans heavily on ‘‘let’s look busy without making any real waves.’’ It’s a play in familiar U.N. theater—grand in ambition but frustratingly short on results, leaving one pondering the effectiveness of such measures and yearning for genuine change. But don't tell liberals—they just might take offense at such ‘critical’ observations.