|
Peacekeeping operations by the United Nations are
operations designed to restore or protect the peace in certain areas of conflict. They are initiated by the UN Security Council.
UN peacekeeping initiatives have ranged from small, diplomatic or political delegations to large mobilizations. From 1957 to
2003, there were 55 UN
peacekeeping missions. 13 missions were continuing at the end of 2003. 130 nations have sent troops on peacekeeping missions
with troops from 89 countries deployed in 2003. Canada and Fiji have been part of almost all peacekeeping missions.
A total of 1800 soldiers, hailing from over 100 countries, have been killed while serving on peacekeeping missions. 30% of the
fatalities in the first 55 years of UN peacekeeping occurred in the years 1993-1995.
History
The first peacekeeping mission occurred in 1948 when the UN sent in military observers
to supervise the truce in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The group was called the UN Truce Supervision Organization. A similar group
was sent to the India-Pakistan border in 1949. The first armed UN peacekeeping force was
deployed in 1957 at the end of the Suez
Crisis. The idea was developed by Canadian foreign minister Lester B. Pearson, who won the Nobel Peace
Prize for his efforts. The peacekeeping was a success in the Suez and the idea was soon applied to other conflicts.
In the first few years following the end of the Cold War the number of peacekeeping operations increased dramatically. The
proliferation of operations reflected the view that, in the post-Cold War era, the UN could play an important role in defusing
regional conflicts. Some of the peacekeeping operations of the early 1990s also saw an expansion of the traditional peacekeeping
mandate to include such responsibilities as supervising elections, monitoring human rights, training police, and overseeing civil
administration. 1993 saw a peak in the number of peacekeepers with 80,000 deployed.
From 1995 to mid-1999 there was a sharp decline in the number of UN peacekeepers in the field, from a high of around 70,000 to
12,000. The assumption by NATO of major peacekeeping responsibilities in the former
Yugoslavia (and the resultant termination of UNPROFOR's mandate) accounted for much of the decrease. Other factors included the
closeout of UN operations in Mozambique in January 1995, Somalia in March 1995,
El Salvador in April 1995, and Rwanda in March 1996. With the U.S. and the UN taking a
much harder look at proposed peacekeeping operations, the only major new UN mission set up in this period outside the former
Yugoslavia was the UNAVEM III operation in Angola.
The mid-1990s saw two of peacekeeping's greatest failures. The genocide in Rwanda in 1995 occurred despite warnings from the
field that the situation was extremely precarious. The Rwanda crisis illustated the difficulties of the UN's slow moving approval
process for missions.
The other great failure was in Bosnia where peacekeepers, mostly Dutch, were attempting to create safe areas to protect civilians from Serbian aggression. The peacekeepers did not have the weaponry or the mandate to stand up to the Serbs, and the
safe areas fell. Most notorious were the events at Srebrenica where over 7000
Muslisms were killed.
Beginning in June 1999, new missions in Kosovo and East Timor and expanded missions in Sierra Leone and the Congo dramatically increased both the costs and
personnel levels of UN peacekeeping operations. They also added a new level of complexity to peacekeeping efforts, with a greater
emphasis on civilian administration in East Timor and Kosovo. From July 1999 to June 2001, overall UN peacekeeping personnel
levels increased to 43,000, with even more personnel authorized but not deployed. In August of 2003, 37,000 total UN peacekeepers
were in 13 peacekeeping missions, from 89 countries.
Total UN peacekeeping expenses peaked between 1994 and 1995; at the end of 1995 the total cost was just over $3.5 billion USD.
Total UN peacekeeping costs for 2000, including operations funded from the UN regular budget as well as the peacekeeping budget,
were on the order of $2.2 billion USD.
Participation
The countries that have historically formed the core of UN peacekeeping operations are Canada, Sweden, Ireland, Finland, Norway, Denmark, India, Italy, and Australia. In recent deployments,
Bangladesh, Pakistan, Ghana and Nigeria have contributed large numbers of
troops. Since the end of the Cold War eastern powers have also started to often
participate in peacekeeping, especially Poland and the Czech Republic.
That it is mostly middle powers that participate in peacekeeping is
largely explained by the fact that such countries more readily appear neutral in conflict situations. Soldiers from these
countries look far less threatnening to a nation than ones from the United States or Russia would. There is also an economic
incentive, as countries are reimbursed by the UN at the rate of US$1000 per soldier per month, plus equipment, which can be a
significant source of revenue for a developing country.
See the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations for current statistics on missions, numbers of peacekeepers in the field, and
more: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/home.shtml
US Participation in UN peacekeeping operations
Facing increasing demands on peacekeeping resources, the UN and member nations had to make difficult choices. In 1994 the US
government responded to the challenges posed by the growing number and complexity of UN peacekeeping operations by implementing a
policy framework suited to the new environment. The new policy involved six major areas of reform:
- Improving how the US decides which peace operations to support and whether US troops should take part;
- Reducing both US and overall costs for UN peace operations;
- Reaffirming long-standing US policy on command and control of American military forces in UN operations;
- Reforming UN management of those operations;
- Improving the manner by which the US funds and manages peace operations; and
- Improving the standard of consultations between the US executive branch and Congress on peace operations.
As of June 30, 2001, there were 797 US personnel (1 troop, 756 civilian police, and 40 observers) in worldwide UN peace
operations, accounting for 1.8% of total UN peacekeepers. As commander-in-chief, the President of the United States never gives
up command authority over US troops. When large numbers of US troops are involved and when the risk of combat is high,
operational control of US forces will remain in American hands, or in the hands of a trusted military ally such as a NATO
member—though the US Department of State insists that the US must "allow temporary foreign operational control of US troops
when it serves US interests."
The lack of United States involvement in UN peacekeeping operations has drawn criticism from other member states. The paltry
investment of personnel in UN peacekeeping operations is attributed to "the Mogadishu factor"—a deep reluctance by US administrations to incur casualties in military operations which
do not serve US strategic interests. The US, however, pays 27% of the UN peackeeping budget, down slightly from 30% before 2000.
This amounted to $844 million in 2002.
The US also deploys units, not under UN control, alongside UN peacekeepers in the Balkans, East Timor, and the Sinai.
Source: http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/fs/2001/index.cfm?docid=4842
Issues with Peacekeeping
Hypocrisy
Some peacekeeping powers have been accused of being hypocritical and pursuing peacekeeping for their own goals of increasing
their international power and prestige. Countries such as Sweden, Italy, and the Netherlands have especially been attacked
for being major arms suppliers while at the same time pursuing peacekeeping,
often in the same areas as they are selling weapons.
The United States has complained bitterly about the ineffectiveness of UN peacekeeping but then threatened to shut down all
such operations if immunity was not given in the International Criminal Court for US soldiers.
Neocolonialism
Some critics have argued that peacekeeping is a return to the paternalistic ideals of colonialism's "white man's burden."
Harm to troops
Peacekeeping has also been viewed as a threat to the participating militaries. It has been worried that many peacekeeping
operations will erode the combat ability of troops and make it harder for them to fight a real war. Peacekeeping has also been
found to be extremely stressful, and there are higher rates of mental problems, suicide, and substance abuse among former peacekeepers
than the general population. UN peacekeepers have also suffered a high level of deaths from violence against them.
However, the world's most experienced peacekeeper, Canada, feels that peacekeeping does not do excessive harm to its troops.
Even though Canada has lost more soldiers in peacekeeping operations than any other nation, it feels that the cost is acceptable
in order to maintain a more peaceful world. The Canadian forces' experience in peacekeeping operations has proved invaluable when
the troops have been called out to aid the civil powers as in the Oka
crisis.
Long term problems
Some have criticized peacekeeping for leaving conflicts unresolved. Peacekeeping can have the effect of maintaining an
unstable status quo that will inevitably collapse in the long run.
However, it is not the job the peacekeepers to create a permanent solution. They can only stabilize the situation to give the
politicians and diplomats the opportunity to establish a permanent peace.
See also
External link
|