Global Policy Forum

By Colum Lynch

As recently as the early 1990s, American and European soldiers formed the backbone of U.N. forces trying to keep the peace in Cambodia, Somalia and the Balkans. But today, U.N. peacekeeping largely is subcontracted to Third World soldiers who endure the physical risk while rich countries bear the financial cost.

This situation, which has developed gradually as the United States and other developed countries have scaled back their involvement in U.N. missions, increasingly is under attack as unfair.

"You can't have a situation where some people contribute blood and some contribute money," said Lakhdar Brahimi, a former Algerian foreign minister who headed up a U.N. panel that studied peacekeeping and presented proposals for reform in August. "That's not the U.N. we want."

In the first 10 years of U.N. peacekeeping, from 1948 to 1958, the overwhelming majority of international casualties, including 41 out of 54 fatalities, were among U.S., Canadian and European troops. Today, if a U.N. peacekeeper is killed in the line of duty, it is far more likely that he will be from Africa or Asia. In Sierra Leone, the largest and most dangerous of current U.N. missions, all 21 fatalities this year have been troops from developing nations--Nigeria, Kenya, India, Ghana, Guinea, Zambia and Jordan.

Bangladesh, a major troop contributor, proposed this week that the U.N. Security Council's five permanent members--the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China--each be required to provide at least 5 percent of the troops for any U.N. peacekeeping operation that they authorize. None of the permanent members supported the proposal, and it was dropped.

Developing nations now contribute more than 75 percent of the nearly 30,000 U.N. troops taking part in 15 missions around the world. The five largest troop contributors--India, Nigeria, Jordan, Bangladesh and Ghana--supply about 13,700 soldiers, well over a third of all U.N. "blue helmets." The United States, Japan and European countries, on the other hand, provide relatively scant numbers of troops but will be billed for more than 85 percent of the $3 billion cost of U.N. peacekeeping this year.

Some of the major troop providers are losing patience with this arrangement. Jordan recently joined India in announcing plans to withdraw from the U.N. operation in Sierra Leone, citing in part the failure of NATO countries to participate.

The current division of labor also contrasts starkly with the early days of U.N. peacekeeping, when American soldiers joined European, African and Asian troops in attempting to keep the lid on border disputes and civil wars from the Sinai to the Congo. Nearly a decade ago, the United States participated in a rainbow coalition of troops attempting to prevent starvation and restore order in Somalia. But after 44 Americans were killed there, President Clinton signed a presidential directive in May 1994 that imposed strict conditions for U.S. involvement in U.N. peacekeeping. American participation has since plunged from more than 3,300 troops in 1993 to zero today.

As the number of U.N. peacekeeping missions has surged in recent years, the United States has looked to regional powers to fill the gap. NATO has played a key role in the Balkans. Australian troops have taken the lead in East Timor. But African missions have been problematic.

"We all know that the U.N.'s most challenging and important operations face desperate shortfalls in terms of troops, equipment and training," James Cunningham, the U.S. deputy representative to the United Nations, said in a Security Council meeting Monday. "Unless we move decisively, peacekeeping--the core function of the United Nations--will fail."

U.S. and European officials insist that they are carrying their weight. They note that most of the 65,000 peacekeepers under NATO command in Kosovo and Bosnia are from the United States and Europe. In addition, Britain maintains a rapid reaction force for Sierra Leone, poised to bail U.N. troops out of trouble.

While U.S. officials acknowledge that they have been stingy with combat soldiers, they also note that Washington provides the United Nations with 36 military observers and 865 police in the Balkans and East Timor. The United States also has pledged to contribute six military observers to monitor the border truce between Ethiopia and Eritrea.

European countries have followed Washington's example, offering troops only in places where there are limited risks and where they have vital interests or historical responsibilities. Like the United States, they have been traumatized by some past operations. In Rwanda in 1994, 10 Belgian soldiers were executed by Hutu extremists engaged in the mass slaughter of more than 500,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus. In Bosnia, U.N. commanders delayed a request for air support by Dutch peacekeepers in Srebrenica, where Bosnian Serb forces slaughtered more than 7,000 Muslim civilians.

"The Dutch had a searing experience in Srebrenica and the Belgians in Rwanda," said Britain's U.N. ambassador, Jeremy Greenstock. "The French and the British haven't quite had in recent years those experiences, but we could easily get caught in difficulty of that kind." As a result, the number of British and French peacekeepers has fallen from nearly 12,000 in Bosnia in 1993 to 576 in Cyprus and southern Lebanon today.

"The Europeans said if the Americans won't [contribute], we won't," said Chester Crocker, a former U.S. assistant secretary of state for African affairs.

Some developing countries, on the other hand, have been eager to dispatch troops, partly for the money. Pakistan, for example, believes peacekeeping provides valuable military training, burnishes the country's image, and raises morale among troops who are paid higher salaries than at home. "The public remains extremely happy when the army participates in peacekeeping operations," the Pakistani leader, Gen. Pervez Musharaff, said in an interview. "We would like to contribute as many troops as possible anywhere in the world."

Crocker noted that some of the U.N.'s most effective peacekeepers come from poor countries. "The Indians and the Pakistanis may be at war at home, but they are damn good at peacekeeping," he said. Indeed, peacekeepers from the world's most technologically advanced armies have not proven much better at suppressing conflicts. "Their participation in Bosnia, Somalia and even Rwanda couldn't guarantee success," said David Malone, president of the New York-based International Peace Academy. "But their absence preordains failure."