MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793754737 · doi:10.1093/ia/iiy013

Dangerous diplomacy: bureaucracy, power politics, and the role of the UN Secretariat in Rwanda

2018· article· en· W2793754737 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Affairs · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Peace and Security Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenocidePoliticsPeacekeepingAgency (philosophy)Power (physics)Political scienceDiplomacyHuman rightsPeacebuildingSociologyPublic administrationLawSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An extremely important and valuable work, Dangerous diplomacy contributes substantially and impressively to understanding the pathologies of politics and power at the United Nations, specifically with regard to the organization's actions before and during the Rwandan genocide. The UN failed to prevent and stop the genocide in 1994 and ultimately contributed to its scale and scope. Herman T. Salton's book is a work of great ethical and intellectual depth, as well as of interpersonal and organizational insight, which is genuinely exceptional, original and of superlative quality—it is a major contribution to literature on the UN. Salton honestly, analytically and rigorously exposes the inner workings of UN agencies responsible for envisioning and implementing UN policies vis-à-vis Rwanda, specifically in relation to peacekeeping, peacebuilding, and the purported prevention of genocide, crimes against humanity and other egregious human rights violations. At each of these tasks the UN failed, catastrophically, and with a staggering combination of incompetence, pettiness and cowardice—while showing a profound lack of moral urgency and chronic ethical blindness. The book reveals intra-agency, inter-agency and interpersonal dysfunction within the UN, including extensive information not previously available due to its private and confidential nature. Much of this dysfunction stemmed from a lack of communication and coordination, as well as from turf wars between the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and the Department of Political Affairs (DPA) within the UN Secretariat. Conflicts between their leadership, staff and closely related—often overlapping, but somewhat artificially and arbitrarily separated—missions are a central analytical concern of the book; the DPKO was ostensibly responsible for operational and technical aspects of peacekeeping and the DPA for political aspects of peacebuilding and larger questions of policy. Salton argues that much of the UN's failure in Rwanda stems from the conceptual confusion about the scope and mission of these two UN agencies—acting more in a spirit of conflict and competition than coordination and cooperation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it