Countries like Nepal do peacekeeping because it effectively reduces their own military expenditure: http://m.dw.com/en/what-drives-south-asians-to-peacekeeping/...

PK is economically more attractive for a poor country with an oversized army than a rich country with a relatively small army.

There is also the Brigade of Gurkhas in the British Army which is composed of soldiers from Nepal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade_of_Gurkhas

> Countries like Nepal do peacekeeping because it effectively reduces their own military expenditure

Sure, but why would the rest of the world be interested in peacekeepers from incompetent countries who are being fobbed off on the UN to reduce military bills at home? Was Haiti better off after receiving these guys?

Is there any evidence that the deployment of the nepalese soldiers had any ill effects at home? That their absence handicapped responses to those crises?

On the other hand, deploying the nepalese soldiers equips them with practical experience (some of which might well have come in handy after the 2015 quake), and I assume they are fairly well paid on a UN mission too. Injecting some cash into Nepal is not a bad thing.

From the UN website it looks like poorer countries stand to make a (small) profit on deployment:

>Peacekeeping soldiers are paid by their own Governments according to their own national rank and salary scale. Countries volunteering uniformed personnel to peacekeeping operations are reimbursed by the UN at a standard rate, approved by the General Assembly, of a little over US$1,332 per soldier per month. http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/operations/financing.shtml

Obviously, salaries aren't the full cost of a military, especially not on deployment, but US$1332 is ~140k Nepalese rupees, which is 4x the national average salary.

http://www.salaryexplorer.com/salary-survey.php?loc=151&loct...

I would suspect this is fairly lucrative.

Unfortunately, the Nepalese soldiers didn't do shit (so to speak) in terms of the relief efforts after the quake. Source: Doctor I know who was doing relief work there at that time.

It was also in the Clinton emails that were released (Chelsea Clinton was there and writing to her parents) https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_W...

"Speaking of censuses, the UN also needs a census of itself and its materials in country - including of the peacekeeper bases outside Port Au Prince. For example, we drove by 2 bases on the way to Cange and there were collectively, I would estimate, more than a hundred trucks and buses just sitting between the two, as well as at least 800 Napali soldiers (according to locals) laying effectively fallow - and I don't think anyone expects an outbreak of violence on the Central Plateau in the near future so even if they and their colleagues are deployed under UN Charter Chapter 6, surely preserving the peace could be interpreted to work with the settlements? At the least, their hardware could be used more effectively in Port Au Prince."

> Is there any evidence that the deployment of the nepalese soldiers had any ill effects at home?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

Take their travel expenses and peacekeeping salaries and repurpose those as a practical domestic training program or foreign aid.

I only propose this as an alternative to the status quo, which apparently features useful practical lessons about sanitation, but only through trial and error in someone else's backyard.

I seem to remember that the countries providing peacekeepers are compensated for their efforts. Even if not, there must be some benefit or they wouldn't participate.

There could also be some benefit for these soldiers. It must be quite the learning experience for a Nepalese soldier to work in Haiti. I know there have been numerous problems with such deployments, but there's an upside to it even if it's hard to measure.

Things aren't that bad in Nepal on the whole. The low GDP is mostly because a lot of them are subsistence farmers and don't have much cash.

> Things aren't that bad in Nepal on the whole

> a lot of them are subsistence farmers

These statements directly contradict each other.