Peacekeeping

Having brokered a ceasefire in late January between warring parties in eastern DR Congo, the UN peacekeeping mission in the country, known by its acronym, MONUC, now risks becoming overstretched, according to the Secretary-General's latest report [pdf]. The danger stems from two interrelated developments: First, having achieved the success of a peace deal, MONUC is responsible to help implement it. In this case, that requires pursuing three objectives: monitoring the ceasefire; supporting the process of disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR); and securing the return of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs). This latter task is particularly daunting, as more displaced persons are crowded into Congo's eastern provinces than anywhere else in the country. Second, to achieve these goals, MONUC has needed to relocate significant numbers of its personnel eastward. While this is an understandable and laudable move -- particularly because of the persistent insecurity in IDP camps -- it runs the risk of pulling much-needed peacekeepers from other volatile areas, which, as Ban notes in his report, "might jeopardize important progress towards peace and stability elsewhere in the country."

In honor of Petraeus day on Capitol Hill, I thought I'd flag two video posts on our sister site On Day One in which Cato scholars Justin Logan and Chris Preble say that the United States should swear off nation building. The lesson of Iraq, they say, is not that the United States should learn how to do nation building better, but that the United States should not do it at all. Personally speaking, I'm sympathetic to this view. That said, I still think that there is a great need for nation building and post conflict reconstruction in today's world. Enter UN Peacekeeping, which has a demonstrated (if under-appreciated) record of success in post conflict zones. Rather than trying to do a better job of invading and occupying countries, it may make more sense to broaden our support for the one organization that has some experience and expertise in this line of work. Watch their videos and let us know what you think.

In honor of Petraeus day on Capitol Hill, I thought I'd flag two video posts on our sister site On Day One in which Cato scholars Justin Logan and Chris Preble say that the United States should swear off nation building. The lesson of Iraq, they say, is not that the United States should learn how to do nation building better, but that the United States should not do it at all. Personally speaking, I'm sympathetic to this view. That said, I still think that there is a great need for nation building and post conflict reconstruction in today's world. Enter UN Peacekeeping, which has a demonstrated (if under-appreciated) record of success in post conflict zones. Rather than trying to do a better job of invading and occupying countries, it may make more sense to broaden our support for the one organization that has some experience and expertise in this line of work. Watch their videos and let us know what you think.

At a hearing on Wednesday before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight (watch the webcast here, and go to about the 1:07 mark for the fieriest bits), Representative Dana Rohrabacher took a host of unnecessary pot shots at UN peacekeeping, indiscriminately writing off nearly every mission as a "failure" and insulting blue helmets for "incompetence" and "cowardice." The briefer at the hearing, Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Jane Holl Lute wisely opted not to stoop to Rohrabacher's level, particularly because none of the other committee members shared Rohrabacher's outlandish views. As a former decorated member of the U.S. military herself, though, Lute understandably bristled at Rohrabacher's downright insulting indictment of brave UN peacekeeping personnel. While Lute refrained from making the following comparison -- though the subcommittee's chair, Rep. Bill Delahunt, did invoke Iraq several times -- the principles of both logic and sound policymaking demand that it be made: if peacekeeping debacles were consistently attributed to troops' "incompetence" and "cowardice," U.S. soldiers would face a string of equally groundless defamations for the imbroglio they are facing in Iraq. That they do not is testament to the double standard that Rohrabacher so eagerly employs to slander UN peacekeepers. At the heart of Rohrabacher's anti-UN agenda -- of which his crusade is of course only an example -- is his ruthless exploitation of a key difference in the political capital generated by two premises: on the one hand, the entrenched dictate of "Support the Troops," and on the other, the much less well-established -- while no less valuable -- imperative to "Support the Peacekeepers."

At a hearing on Wednesday before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight (watch the webcast here, and go to about the 1:07 mark for the fieriest bits), Representative Dana Rohrabacher took a host of unnecessary pot shots at UN peacekeeping, indiscriminately writing off nearly every mission as a "failure" and insulting blue helmets for "incompetence" and "cowardice." The briefer at the hearing, Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Jane Holl Lute wisely opted not to stoop to Rohrabacher's level, particularly because none of the other committee members shared Rohrabacher's outlandish views. As a former decorated member of the U.S. military herself, though, Lute understandably bristled at Rohrabacher's downright insulting indictment of brave UN peacekeeping personnel. While Lute refrained from making the following comparison -- though the subcommittee's chair, Rep. Bill Delahunt, did invoke Iraq several times -- the principles of both logic and sound policymaking demand that it be made: if peacekeeping debacles were consistently attributed to troops' "incompetence" and "cowardice," U.S. soldiers would face a string of equally groundless defamations for the imbroglio they are facing in Iraq. That they do not is testament to the double standard that Rohrabacher so eagerly employs to slander UN peacekeepers. At the heart of Rohrabacher's anti-UN agenda -- of which his crusade is of course only an example -- is his ruthless exploitation of a key difference in the political capital generated by two premises: on the one hand, the entrenched dictate of "Support the Troops," and on the other, the much less well-established -- while no less valuable -- imperative to "Support the Peacekeepers."

I've made the case before that the crisis in Somalia seems to hover perpetually on the edge of falling into the oblivion of international apathy. Today the UN World Food Program, which is working to feed over two million people in conditions of continually deteriorating chaos and insecurity, made an impassioned plea not to forget the dire humanitarian needs in the East African country.

"The international community must put Somalia at the top of its agenda and press for change before it is too late," said Peter Goossens, WFP's Country Director for Somalia. "We call on all authorities in Somalia to help us reach those in need and urge donors not to give up on this country."

Specifically, WFP is calling for $10 million before July, at which point it will have seriously run out of most basic food staples. For the number of lives at stake, this seems a small price to pay.

I've made the case before that the crisis in Somalia seems to hover perpetually on the edge of falling into the oblivion of international apathy. Today the UN World Food Program, which is working to feed over two million people in conditions of continually deteriorating chaos and insecurity, made an impassioned plea not to forget the dire humanitarian needs in the East African country.

"The international community must put Somalia at the top of its agenda and press for change before it is too late," said Peter Goossens, WFP's Country Director for Somalia. "We call on all authorities in Somalia to help us reach those in need and urge donors not to give up on this country."

Specifically, WFP is calling for $10 million before July, at which point it will have seriously run out of most basic food staples. For the number of lives at stake, this seems a small price to pay.

The Agonists' Alex Thurston is apoplectic that Ban even suggested a peacekeeping force of 27,000 for Somalia.

27,000, huh Ban? Now look, I want to see stability in Somalia too. But don't you think you should be concentrating on finding the 17,000 peacekeepers the force in Darfur is waiting for, rather than hinting at new commitments? I have qualified support for the UN, but that doesn't mean I can't criticize the General Secretary when he says things that simply don’t make sense. In fact, I'm going to criticize the UN hardest when they fall flat on rhetoric, because rhetoric is the main tool in their arsenal at this point. So don't even mention troop numbers you have no hope of getting.

True, the UN is having difficulty securing the right troops and equipment for the Darfur mission. The thing is, if you read the recently released report on Somalia from which the 27,000 is drawn, it's clear that Ban is certainly not calling for a peacekeeping force anytime soon. Rather, as envisioned by the report (which the Security Council is to discuss today) before peacekeepers can even be considered, other hurdles must first be crossed. For example, the security situation would have to permit the UN to move its Somalia headquarters into Somalia. Then, at least 70% of the factions would have to sign onto a cease-fire. Following that, a broad-based political agreement would have to be forged. Only after these conditions have been met does the Secretary General contemplate a peacekeeping force for Somalia. This is a reasonable and cautious way forward. Member states are likely to be more forthcoming with troop contributions should there be a viable political process to uphold. On the other hand, the problem with generating troops for Darfur is in part due to the fact that there is no peace to keep.

The Washington Post's Craig Timberg reports on the progress made by many of the counties in the region:

Civil wars in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Ivory Coast have ended, and although Ivory Coast has yet to hold its first postwar vote, Liberia and Sierra Leone have elected leaders with popular mandates. Regional giant Nigeria, where military rule ended in 1999, has had a series of deeply flawed votes, but the disputes are being settled in an increasingly independent court system. These countries are all freer, more stable and more democratic than they were a decade ago, regional analysts say. Peace, however fragile, is the norm rather than war. And citizens of these nations increasingly are demanding responsive governance from their leaders.

Why is West Africa experiencing this improvement, when much of East Africa is embroiled in conflict? Timberg focuses much of his article on the positive influence of burgeoning democracies like Ghana, which has benefited from its peaceful electoral transitions and successful handling of any regional or ethnic tensions. Along with this explanation, though, Timberg highlights another factor:

The exile and prosecution of Liberian warlord Charles Taylor, who spread conflict to the country's neighbors, has helped stabilize the region, as have U.N. peacekeeping missions.

UN peacekeepers are not just a band-aid to respond to emergencies. The secure environment that they provide, as their success in countries like Liberia and Sierra Leone demonstrates, provides a foundation for long-term development across the entire region.