Global Policy Forum

By Thalif Deen

India, the third largest troop contributor to UN peacekeeping missions, has expressed strong reservations over a proposal by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to split the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) into two entities. "If the proposals on DPKO go through, then it is our soldiers who would face great risks and danger," said Ambassador Nirupam Sen of India, which last year provided 7,340 troops, ranking behind Bangladesh (10,154) and Pakistan (9,516). Addressing a closed door meeting of the 130-member Group of 77 developing countries, Sen said the DPKO was set up by the General Assembly back in 1992 after detailed examination of its role, tasks and functions. He said there was "an intensive process" which resulted in drafting the specific functions and mandates of the DPKO. "We cannot jettison them at the drop of a hat without going through relevant procedures, meticulously and stringently," Sen said. Hinting that the Secretariat has no right to dismantle or realign a UN Department without proper consultations with member states and budgetary committees, Sen said: "To use a metaphor from a Christian marriage ceremony, those whom the General Assembly resolution has joined together, let no man put asunder."

According to proposals submitted by the secretary-general in two "non-papers" last week, the DPKO is to be split into two: a Department of Peace Operations and a Department of Field Support, both of which will be headed by an Under-Secretary-General (USG), the third highest ranking post in the organisation. But there are already unconfirmed rumours and conspiracy theories that one of the peacekeeping departments may be headed by a U.S. national, possibly with a military background. A G-77 delegate told IPS that "nothing surprises us -- particularly after the administration of President George W. Bush pushed for former U.S. deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz, responsible for some of the failed policies in Iraq, for president of the World Bank. And Bush succeeded in his quest." Wolfowitz worked under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who himself was forced out of his job after growing demands by U.S. lawmakers and ex-military officers for his removal because of the role he played in taking the United States into a military quagmire in Iraq which has continued to suck U.S. resources -- both financial and military -- over the last four years. "If Wolfowitz can be president of the World Bank," said the G77 delegate good-humouredly, "maybe the Bush administration is looking for a UN peacekeeping job for Donald Rumsfeld. You never know?"

President of the 192-member General Assembly Sheikha Haya Al Khalifa has held a series of consultations, not only with members of the G77 but also with members of the 116-member Non-Aligned Movement, the largest single political bloc at the United Nations. She had consultations with 14 delegations, including the European Union, the chairman of the African Group, and also with countries that did not fall within any of the regional groups, including Norway and Switzerland.

Sen said he couldn't understand the haste to split DPKO because the UN's Office of Internal Oversight Services is expected to come up with a report soon which will examine the managerial structure of the DPKO, particularly with a specific focus on the relationship between DPKO and the other departments in the UN Secretariat, including the Department of Political Affairs. "Why the need to jump the gun?" he asked. Sen also expressed the view that any separation of the DPKO could put the lives of soldiers in jeopardy, including Indian soldiers. "In a military operation, an operational commander needs above all to have this kind of unity of command, he needs to have the ability to deploy resources as he sees fit and to have logistics under it." If logistics is separated, Sen argued, then that would "greatly impair functional efficiency and expose our soldiers to great risk and danger." "It is not a question of quickly finding some compromise phase. But it is something that affects security and lives of soldiers," he said. "Hence, this all the more reinforces the point of very careful examination through laid down procedures of the General Assembly."

Ambassador Ronaldo Sardenberg of Brazil, whose country provided more than 1,270 troops to peacekeeping missions last year, was equally critical of the proposed changes in DPKO. He said the content of these reforms on disarmament and DPKO are so important that "we would like to have adequate time to study them in detail in a regular report and to have expert advice of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions and the Fifth Committee that deals with financial implications of the new restructuring proposals." "My delegation believes that the proposal of the secretary-general should follow established procedures. By adhering to them member states would have time to reach consensus more easily on the merits of the proposal," Sardenberg said. Otherwise, he warned, "We will experience once again disputes with member states and between member states and the Secretariat. There is no reason to change established procedures."

Besides the proposal to split the DPKO, Ban is also peddling a more controversial proposal is to reconstitute the existing Department for Disarmament Affairs (DDA) as a separate "Office for Disarmament Affairs." The new office is to be brought under a Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs or a High Representative. Since he is trying to keep within the existing budget, Ban is juggling with the post: he is planning to take away the USG post from DDA and give it to newly-revamped DPKO (which will have two USG posts). This proposal for a downgrading of DDA is being opposed not only by the G77 and Non-Aligned Movement but also by countries such as Norway, New Zealand and Austria, which have expressed reservations. The General Assembly is expected to meet on Monday to discuss the secretary-general's proposals. But in a letter to its members, G77 proposed that if the secretary-general wishes to further elaborate his proposals to member states, he could do so at Monday's meeting. But the letter warned the meeting should be "an informal closed meeting than a formal plenary of the General Assembly." "This would avoid any embarrassment to the secretary-general in case his proposals require modifications in light of the positions of member states." At closed door meetings last week, several member states hinted of possible significant changes, which may water down the secretary-general's proposals not to his liking.