Powerful nations in UN peacekeeping farce

By Thalif Deen at the united nations

NEW YORK - A fear expressed by some Sri Lankan politicians can be laid to rest: the United Nations is not likely to send any peacekeeping troops to Sri Lanka -- at least in the near future. The world body is overstretched with far too many conflicts on its hands in order to be an effective global policeman.

Weighed down by 17 peacekeeping operations, including large-scale missions in Africa, the UN is short of troops, military equipment, funds, and most importantly the political will of member states, to shoulder an increasingly heavy burden currently in danger of collapse. When nearly 1,000 Kenyans were killed in ethnic riots in that east African country recently, the world body was either helpless or unwilling to act.

Pupils stand in their classroom under a tree in Muhajariya, South Darfur in this handout photograph released by Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF). US$ 2 billion are spent annually for a joint UN-African Union peacekeeping mission in southern Sudan, Critics say the money should have been spent on poverty alleviation rather than conflict prevention.

In the Horn of Africa, the UN was forced to withdraw from Eritrea and re-locate its troops because of non-cooperation by the Eritreans. The UN Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea was established in July 2000 to monitor a ceasefire ending a border war between the two neighbours.

In Somalia, the UN's proposed plans for a new peacekeeping operation in that troubled country have been stymied by a protracted civil war where UN peacekeepers could be caught in the crossfire. Rightly or wrongly, the African Union also takes the position that African problems have to be resolved by Africans themselves, not by outsiders.

In Sudan, the UN has failed to raise the 26,000 troops it desperately needs, mostly from Africa, to monitor a four-year-old conflict in Darfur. The longstanding conflict, which has claimed the lives of more than 200,000 civilians, and reduced more than 2.2 million to the status of refugees or internally displaced persons, continues to fester as the UN fails to take drastic action.

Alpha Oumar Konare, chairman of the African Union Commission, says it is "scandalous" to spend $2 billion annually on the upkeep of a proposed 26,000-strong joint African Union-UN Mission in Darfur (UNAMID), when Africa's urgent needs are elsewhere.

Providing an African perspective, the former President of Mali told reporters he "really regretted" that "enormous sums were being poured into conflict prevention in Africa, which could be better used to address the continent's development challenges."
UNAMID's mega budget, one of the largest in UN peacekeeping history, was "scandalous", he said, considering the fact that the key to solving the problem in Sudan rested "with us."

He admitted, however, that there was an "African responsibility" to deal with peace and security problems in the continent. Jane Holl Lute, Assistant Secretary-General for Field Support, says the UN's overall peacekeeping budget, which was less than $2 billion in 2003, could exceed $7 billion in 2007-2008 -- more than three times the size of the UN's annual regular budget. The largest portion of the $7 billion will be earmarked for the UN mission in Darfur.

But the proposed mission in Darfur has failed to get off the ground primarily because of the shortage of troops and equipment, including 24 much-needed helicopters. During a visit to New York last month, former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan criticised member states for their unwillingness to provide unconditional support for peacekeeping operations.

"I can understand why some countries will not put troops on the ground in Darfur for reasons I think we can accept," he said. "But I cannot understand why they cannot spare a couple of helicopters." Annan, who oversaw the creation of more than a dozen new UN peacekeeping missions during his 10-year tenure as the UN's chief administrative officer, also warned of a new impending danger: the UN was taking over far too many missions which it may be incapable of handling.

The former Secretary-General also pointed out the UN is going to be "overstretched" by the increasing number of global conflicts -- mostly in Africa and Asia."I don't think the UN is in a position today to go in and take over in Afghanistan; I don't think the UN will get the resources to play a major and active role in Somalia," he pointed out.

"We are already struggling to get the resources in Darfur, where some have declared it genocide." And worse still, he said, was "to create the impression of action when nothing is happening. "This, I think, is more damaging." The UN operations have also been hampered by the fact that most Western nations do not want to risk their troops in conflicts far removed from home. Currently, the four biggest troop contributors are Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Nepal.

As of December 2007, Pakistan provided a total of 10,616 troops for all UN peacekeeping operations, followed by Bangladesh (9,717), India (9,345) and Nepal (3,656). Of the top 20 troop contributors, only four were Western nations: Italy (2,449 troops), France (1,943), Spain (1,183) and Germany (1,150) -- despite the fact that they have both the troops and the equipment needed for peacekeeping missions.

The remaining 16 countries were from the developing world, including Jordan, Ghana, Uruguay, Nigeria and Senegal (besides Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Nepal). As Annan said last month, "We have these conflicts where no one really wants to get involved. Powerful countries with means will not touch it with a barge pole. They will support weak, ineffectual initiatives by others, sometimes by a sub-regional or regional organization, to create the impression of action."