HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
July 14, 2003 Joe Mariani's July 9 article blasting the international communities "hypocrisy" in "calling in the Americans" for an "international peacekeeping mission" to Liberia once again shows the gross ignorance most Americans have of what peacekeeping is, and is a great example of how full of ourselves we Americans are. First and foremost, let's make one point abundantly clear. Whatever else it is, the main point of a peacekeeping mission is NOT TO BE A COMBAT FORCE. It is a political force. This isn't to deny that combat sometimes occurs. It does- usually when the mission is grossly mismanaged, like in Somalia. When non-military sanctions imposed by the Security Council break down, the Council has several military options available to it, all of them managed by the department of peacekeeping operations (UNDPKO, or DPKO), which adds to the confusion. The first option is "humanitarian intervention." In this option, the UN sends in unarmed military hardware and personnel to deliver food, medications, etc. to the civilian populations Most of the time they can bypass hostile forces without being attacked. This is because the DPKO usually sucessfully negotiates with both parties before sending the troops in. "Humanitarian intervention" as a Security Council option failed in Somalia because the DPKO misunderstood Somali culture and failed to gain consent from all of the relevant groups. The second option is the only one known properly as peacekeeping. These are lightly armed troops whose main mission is to "monitor" ceasefires. Their rules of engagement specify they can only shoot if they are shot at. Usually if they are attacked, they're withdrawn, because again, they are not a combat force. They're a political force whose only purpose is to give both sides an excuse to stop fighting without looking like the loser. They're only sent in with the consent of both parties. The third option is known as peace enforcement, which occurs when moderately armed troops are sent in to enforce the terms of the treaty. In other words, under this option if U.N troops see either side breaking the treaty, they can engage them. In practice, the only time this option has been used without provacation was in Bosnia. Usually this option is used when humanitarian interventions or peacekeeping are mismanged and the U.N. can't withdraw due to political considerations (read: stubborness on the part of DPKO or international officials). The fourth and last option is called peace making. This is a full scale war authorized by the UN in order to force a peace. This was used in Korea in the 1950's and in Iraq during the first Gulf War. As for Secreary-General Annan's statement that the U.S. would add "heft" to a peacekeeping mission to Liberia, that was a political statement. The options available to the UN are only (except for peace making) available after a ceasefire or treaty, and then only as a political excuse. The military superiority of the U.S. is not necesary for such a mission. Liberia was founded by freed and runaway U.S. slaves. It has strong historical and cultural ties to the U.S. As to the importance of America in peacekeeping contributions, it's almost nonexistant. As of November 2002, the U.S. was only contributing 675 people to DPKO missions, and 642 of those were civilian police. The highest contributers to peacekeeping missions are Bangladesh, at 5,025 troops, Pakistan with 4,676, and Nigeria with 3,285. Does the UNDPKO need American troops to carry out its mission? Most Americans seem to think so. But let's not fool ourselves. The DPKO gets along very well with our small contributions. ------------ About the author: David Aurisano is a graduate student at the University of Houston. Email David: daurisano@hotmail.com ------------ Comment on this column in the forum. Tell a friend about this site! ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
