Editor,South Sudanese certainly need help to assist them put the genie of mutually assured self-destruction (especially between the Dinka and Nuer, but eventually also among the Acholi, Kakwa, Zande, etc) back into the bottle.I doubt, however, that the UN is capable of helping do that. The organisation's track record in the area of peacemaking, peace enforcement or peacekeeping is overwhelmingly catastrophic. Look at their involvement with the DR Congo from the 1960s or Rwanda circa 1993-94 and you’ll shudder.It would be far better for South Sudan's neighbours who are most affected by its bloodletting, mayhem and instability to take the initiative to find a peaceful resolution of the conflict. If the UN must be involved let it be in a supportive role to sub-regional efforts not as the driver.In summary, if we want to avoid a perpetual bleeding sore in our sub-region, don't bring in the UN – they will turn it into a chronic disaster that can never be in the interest of the people of South Sudan and the sub-region.The UN can be useful in technical advisory (underline advisory), in helping distribute food, in assisting in the design and implementation of developmental work. The UN is itself just not designed for peacemaking or peace enforcing; they are horrible at it.The sooner people realise this the better.Mwene Kalinda, RwandaReaction to the story, "Why the world needs to come to the rescue of South Sudan” (The New Times, January 25)