I had a topic on Peacekeeping Reform for MUN this past year, and one of the aspects was the abuse that peacekeepers inflicted on local populations. It really is quite sad. Yes, the UN should be held responsible for the actions of peacekeepers and should most definitely have stricter rules for the peacekeepers; but we have to realise that UN peacekeepers are pretty much personnel "donated" from other nations, as such, it might be a tad difficult for the UN body itself to keep them in line. But obviously, that's no excuse for having these incidents occur.
As for the whole breakdown of the UN - the UN shouldn't be dissolved, maybe reformed or restructured, but definitely not abolished. Don't get me wrong, the UN is a paper tiger; looks strong but has no real power that we would think an actual government may have. But it does more good than bad I would think. Regardless of whether or not it is able to enforce the policies laid out in conventions and such, you can't deny that they've had major influences in international legislation. The Kyoto Protocol, despite being unratified by the US still prompted the world (including the US, mind you) towards eco-friendly policies. Following the Ottawa Treaty (International Ban on Landmines), the utilisation of mines have decreased throughout the world. Part of the reason the UN fails so frequently is due to the lack of support from the nations that make it up.
When we say "peacekeeping force" or "peacekeepers," we automatically think of the UN; there are a lot of other peacekeeping organizations around the globe. Take NATO for example, I believe (my memory might be a bit fuzzy on this; research was done like... 8 months ago or something) their peacekeeping forces in Bosnia were accused of similar acts of sexual abuse on the local population. Should we disband NATO for it's inabilty to prevent such atrocities?
