India and the Current Concerns of UN Peacekeeping: Issues and Prospects
Peacekeeping opera tion is amongst the volatile issues in the contemporary debate on the role and activities of United Nations. The United Nations uses the peacekeeping operation as a fire-fighting device, sent to the crisis situations in various corners of the world. It was an innovative method devised by accident rather than by design to deal with the impasse created by the Cold War between the two Superpowers. It began as an unambitious system in 1948 to deal with inter-state conflicts and by late 20th century, it has become a much sought after means to contain, calm and resolve intra-state disputes. The changed circumstances provided a conducive opportunity to finish the unfinished task of resolving some of the remaining inter-state conflicts of the Cold War period. Meanwhile, ethnic cleavages that remained suppressed during the cold-war period erupted, leading to civil war situations and secession movements.
‘Recognition’ for Third World peacekeepers: India and Pakistan
Many states contribute troops to UN peacekeeping operations. Some play an indirect role by contributing material support, namely, financial and logistical assistance. Though both levels of participation are equally important for the functioning and success of UN peacekeeping operations, the major burden of carrying out the operation on the ground is borne by the troop contributors. India and Pakistan are among many of the Third World non‐Western countries that participate actively in that capacity. But how does the UN ‘recognize’ the participation of these South Asian states? This article shows that participation of these contributors in the field is not matched by participation at the higher levels of decision and policy making on peacekeeping matters within the UN bureaucracy.
The costs of identifying undiagnosed prostate cancer in asymptomatic men in New Zealand general practice
Background. Screening for prostate cancer (PCa) using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test is widespread in New Zealand. 3 informed testing history in 2007–09 were NZ$8887 compared to NZ$13 870 if the men had PSA tests in 2007–09. If we assumed a PSA test involved a full 15-minute general practice consultation, the estimated costs increased to NZ$26 877 per PCa identified. Conclusions. Screening of asymptomatic men for PCa is widely practiced. Most of the costs of screening were incurred in general practice. Calls for men to receive increased information on the harms and benefits of screening will substantially increase the costs. The current costs could be reduced by better targeting of screening.