New Secretary-General of the UN mistakenly calls current demand for peacekeeping unprecedented. Rather, the acquiescence to such demand is without precedent. Countries and tribes always clashed; civil and border wars are historical routine. Competition in power is the only way for international readjustments. Twenty-first century borders are no more fixed or eternal than the first-century ones. No country or tribe willingly gives away land or influence, but only in war or under a threat.

Peacekeeping operations proved utter failure: at most, the empires arbitrarily redraw the borders to everyone’s discontent; usually, they only quash the violence and leave the fundamental problems to boil and eventually erupt. Frequent small clashes are replaced with huge bloody wars. Violence, like it or not, is indispensable to societal order. Would the US government like the UN peacekeepers to stop IRS from repressing tax evaders?

The losing parties and weak, unsupported governments appeal for international help in preserving status quo. That could not work. They already lost, and foreigners could not sustain the obsolete order of things. Losers want the UN-brokered “conflict management,” but the ascending parties disagree. History knows a single way of managing conflicts: fighting them or threatening to do so.

Pax Romana offers a different lesson. Rome wasn’t merely an arbiter, but the only power in its zone of influence. If the West wants to pacify the Earth, it needs to substantially disarm the vassals. That is incompatible with economic objectives of major arms exporters which are incidentally the major peacekeepers. Also, Rome did not routinely involve itself in minor conflicts between the vassals. Dependent rulers were expected to deal with local threats, and allowed to do so by any means, short reportedly of disgusting long-term cruelty: Romans did not want accumulated discontent among the peoples and preferred reasonable rulers. In modern terms, that means allowing civil wars to run their course but adjudicating border conflicts. The West, unlike Rome, is not prepared to exert exemplary punishment on the countries which violate the imposed peace. Short of such resolve, the UN peace efforts would continue to be futile.

Ki-Moon takes a dangerous approach when says that no country alone could solve the crises like in Darfur or Kosovo, and pronounces them UN responsibility. It seems that UN, typically for a bureaucratic organization, appropriates for itself spheres of influence regardless of its ability to deal with them. The UN is worthless and could be responsible for nothing. NATO, not UN, quashed the Yugoslavian crisis. UN peacekeepers are notoriously lame - witness Sinai and Lebanon, among other places.

Should the UN perhaps stop large atrocities? It could not stop the Iran-Iraq war or Rwanda massacres. Even Darfur region is too big to be passively policed, and peacekeepers are not paid to fight guerrillas. The bigger question is, whom to fight? Who are the perpetrators and who are the victims? Conflicts are almost always entangled, with both sides intermittently committing atrocities against each other. If the UN steps in to stop large conflicts, then everyone would understand that the proper strategy is to start a war and quickly beat opponents before the UN intervenes and stops them from retaliating.

Saddam’s execution in the hands of Shiites showed that even simple attempts at establishing the rule of law often benefit one side in tribal or sectarian conflict. Moralists cause wars, not establish peace.