Global Policy Forum

By Louis Charbonneau

U.N. peacekeeping is headed for a crisis, with demand for blue helmets around the world skyrocketing, financial contributions dwindling and reserves of well-trained soldiers drying up. The term peacekeeping cannot be found in the United Nations charter and yet the U.N. peacekeeping department has grown exponentially since its first mission in 1948. Its $7.1 billion dollar budget now dwarfs that of the U.N. secretariat itself. But U.N. officials say even that budget is insufficient as the United Nations prepares for a mission to Somalia and to expand current missions in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Chad and the Central African Republic.

Fabienne Hara, vice president of the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based think-tank, said U.N. peacekeepers may find it hard over the next few years to finance missions as countries feel the heat from the global financial crisis. "Contributions of U.N. members states will probably not grow at the very least, if not diminish," she said, adding that some missions "may not be funded properly due to a crisis in terms of resources."

There are other problems. With some 112,000 mostly Third World forces spread across the globe, some of the traditional U.N. troop contributors say they are running out of troops. Western states complain that Iraq and expanding commitments in Afghanistan mean they have no spare soldiers for other U.N. missions and urge states like Russia to step up. While developing countries like India and Pakistan provide most of the U.N. troops, it is rich countries that foot the bill. The United States alone pays for around a quarter of the peacekeeping budget and under a dozen developed countries cover nearly 90 percent. All of them now face recession fears.

"Shooting ourselves in the foot"

U.N. diplomats and analysts agree that most of the 63 U.N. peacekeeping operations can be considered successful. In fact, a 2005 RAND Corporation study found that U.N. peacekeeping missions have proven more effective than U.S.-led operations. But there have been some glaring U.N. failures due to a variety of reasons. In 1990s, U.N. peacekeepers failed to prevent the genocide in Rwanda and a major massacre in Bosnia. One of the contributing factors, analysts say, was insufficient resources to confront the conflict, a risk that may present itself again as funding pressures increase for missions that have increasingly forceful mandates. "UN forces ... do fail, but this is often the result of either too few troops or too little money," said political analyst Max Bergmann of the National Security Network. "Our reliance on the United Nations to address trouble spots and to prevent them from worsening has only increased," he said. "Shorting the U.N. on peacekeeping funding is therefore akin to shooting ourselves in the foot." Another accusation routinely hurled at the blue helmets is that they are often inept and cowardly. U.N. officials vehemently reject this charge, citing rising post-Cold War death rates as just one proof of U.N. peacekeepers' courage.

In the case of Congo, U.N. officials dismiss suggestions that U.N. peacekeepers could have prevented the flight of a quarter million civilians in eastern Congo caused by a renewal of fighting between government forces and rebels loyal to renegade Congolese Gen. Laurent Nkunda. "We didn't, and still don't, have enough people there," said a U.N. official. "Congo's big as western Europe."

While some council diplomats accuse the 17,000-strong U.N. mission in Congo, known as MONUC, of not implementing its mandate "robustly" enough, the council took one and a half months to approve a request from MONUC chief Alan Doss for 3,000 reinforcements he said were desperately needed. Diplomats say it may take many more months to find 3,000 extra troops and police for MONUC -- if they are found at all. Western diplomats say Congo is not as strategically vital as Afghanistan or Iraq, so they will send no troops.

Another U.N. official said he worried that the Security Council saw its job as completed now that it had approved an increase in MONUC. He said the council should be lobbying countries to offer troops and equipment needed by the mission. "The Security Council can drop the ball, move on to another issue and we're the ones at fault," the official said. "We've seen before that is a recipe for failure." One senior Western Security Council diplomat said that criticism was valid but added that it was time for other countries with large, well-trained armies to offer soldiers to the Somalia, Congo and other missions in need of troops. "We're not the only ones who can do this," the diplomat said. "Where are the Russians, the Ukrainians? Where are the developing countries who want to have seats on the Security Council? Where is Brazil? It doesn't always have to be us."