By Ramesh Thakur and David Malone
International Herald TribuneOctober 25, 2000
Sensitivity to body bags has made the United States and other Western powers increasingly averse to the risks of peacekeeping. The result is that in conflict-prone areas outside their own neighborhood they leave risky operations to non-white soldiers. The fear of casualties undermines the solidarity of the international community in the shared management of a fragile world order. Those with the military muscle to mount effective operations lack the courage of their convictions, and those with the will lack the military means.
The hurried withdrawal of the United Nations from Somalia was essentially dictated by Western countries unwilling to run further risks there after the deaths of 18 U.S. Army Rangers in 1993. The shameful withdrawal of most UN troops from Rwanda at the height of the genocide in 1994 was caused by Western, particularly U.S., refusal to intervene meaningfully. This has now led to a broader pattern of Western flight from peacekeeping duties in Africa. The message has not been lost on African warlords, for whom it is excellent news.
Western governments are still prepared to volunteer troops for classic peace monitoring operations, such as that on the Ethiopia-Eritrea border after a cease-fire earlier this year. But most wars today resist tidy solutions and involve the United Nations in staring down a variety of combatants prone to shifting alliances and goals. These are duties that Western governments prefer to avoid.
In August, a panel of high-level experts led by Lakhdar Brahimi, a former Algerian foreign minister, issued a report on how to improve UN peacekeeping. The recommendations need to be carried out urgently. The industrialized countries, which foot most of the UN bill, will be called upon to find additional cash to fund improvements in peacekeeping. Will the United States shoulder its share of the extra burden? If not, will other industrialized countries?
Developing countries provide the bulk of UN peacekeepers. It is in their regions that the major requirements for peacekeeping arise. They have everything to gain from seeing the Brahimi report implemented. Their fears that action on its recommendations will drain money from aid into peacekeeping are misguided. Successful peacekeeping will lead to increases in investment as well as aid to affected regions. This is a win-win proposition for developing countries.
Western governments train and equip militaries in the developing world to cope with peacekeeping missions deemed too risky for their own personnel. It not only helps prepare for UN peacekeeping but can facilitate security sector reform, including more productive uses for the military in many developing countries. However, this cannot compensate, morally or practically, for Western nonparticipation in African peacekeeping. Western contingents could not assure the success of UN peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Somalia, but their complete absence in such operations in Africa undermines the objectives of the United Nations and the international community.
Intervention by Britain this year to stabilize the UN peacekeeping force in Sierra Leone showed what high-tech militaries, training and discipline can achieve, even with small numbers. But the U.S. Congress has shown persistent unwillingness to allow American participation in peacekeeping in Africa. As a result, an even heavier responsibility falls on Africa's leaders to rectify behavior predisposing the continent to depredation and war.
Mr. Thakur is vice rector of the United Nations University in Tokyo. Mr. Malone is president of the International Peace Academy in New York.
Other Information on Peacekeeping