---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 19:26:36 -0400 From: Mine Aysen Doyran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: "The United Nations - Can it Keep the Peace?" Fernand Braudel Center, Binghamton University http://fbc.binghamton.edu/commentr.htm Comment No. 40, May 15, 2000 "The United Nations - Can it Keep the Peace?" The fiasco of a United Nations peacekeeping force in Sierra Leone being captured and put out of commission raises once again the question of the possible and appropriate role of the United Nations in this exercise called "peacekeeping." When the UN was founded in 1945, the theory was that it would deal with "threats to the peace" by decisions of the Security Council which would be enforced, if necessary, by troops at its disposition. Of course, this turned out to be an absolute fantasy. The five permanent members of the Security Council were seldom in agreement about major issues, and specifically each of the permanent members was ready to veto any proposal that seemed to impinge on its national interests. The Military Affairs Committee of the UN, provided for in the Charter, has never met. The only time the UN took a military action that went against the interests of a permanent member of the Security Council was in Korea in 1950. And the UN could do this only because the Soviet Union had made the tactical error of boycotting the meetings of the Security Council, an error it would never repeat. This did not however mean that the UN had no role to play. A different role was invented. There were some situations in which the five permanent members all preferred to see a calming of the waters. In these cases, and provided that the local parties in conflict also were ready for a calming of the waters, a truce of some kind could be arranged, and then UN contingents were sent in, ostensibly to monitor the arrangements but really merely to symbolize international endorsement of the truce. Normally, this required that contingents be drawn from countries that were not permanent members of the Security Council and therefore presumably somehow more "neutral." But it also required that the costs of the operations be borne by all the UN members, which means of course in significant proportion by the United States, a provision increasingly resisted by members of the U.S. Senate. In the past half-century, there have been numerous instances of such peacekeeping missions. Many of them have been quite successful, in the sense that the presence of these UN forces has contributed to maintaining these truces in the face of continuing local tensions. We almost never read about such successes in the newspapers, since the sign of their success is that nothing happens which warrants an item in the newspapers. But these are all cases where the local forces in conflict are somewhat exhausted and are essentially grateful to have the facekeeping presence of UN troops to legitimate their non-resumption of hostilities. UN peacekeeping problems of course vary with each particular situation. The Sierra Leone operation illustrates well however the general difficulties. A civil war has been going on in Sierra Leone for quite some time now. It has been particularly gruesome. There seem to be no real ideological issues dividing the two camps, and scarcely any "ethnic" issues. Rather, after several corrupt civilian governments and military coups, the central government structure, never very strong, seemed to collapse. A similar collapse of the center and subsequent civil was occurred first in neighboring Liberia, and in a sense spread to Sierra Leone. Various West African neighbors sought to intervene in various ways, and for various motives, but on different sides. For a while, a sort of peace was enforced by troops from several of these countries, particularly Nigeria which has a large and relatively effective armed forces. But Nigeria has tired of this role, and has turned inward to solve its own problems. Sierra Leone, to its misfortune however, is a country wealthy in mineral resources. It made civil war profitable. Military activity led to the control of diamond wealth which in turn supported arms purchases. Greed fueled the civil war, as it seems to have fueled the interventions of some neighbors. The crucial fact is, however, that Sierra Leone was of no strategic interest to any of the world powers, who have been unwilling to commit soldiers, money, or even much diplomatic effort to contain the damage. After a long period of doing nothing, the world decided to try to end the slaughter. To do this, it decided to ignore the inhuman ferocities committed by the troops. A shaky truce was brokered, and UN troops went in to "keep the peace." These troops however were from countries that were themselves too poor to sustain highly trained, well-equipped armed forces. And the UN troops were vastly outnumbered by the two factions in the civil war. So when one side, the one with less international legitimacy, decided that it was not getting its fair share of the spoils of the truce, it simply decided to start up the war again. The UN troops, far from being able to stop this, have themselves been disarmed by the rebels. The UN seems ridiculous, unable to stop the return of the group which performed savagery. Now, what is under discussion is not who is at fault, nor how to salvage the peace in Sierra Leone, but how to keep this fiasco from undoing the possibility of a UN role in the Congo and elsewhere. Africa is first ignored, then blamed for its own difficulties without a moment's thought to how the world-system's inequalities have fostered them. And when the Africans are not being blamed, then it is the fault of the United Nations. But the UN can do nothing without the permission of the major powers, and they are not really ready to explain to their people why they should send either armed forces or money or even diplomats to remote areas of the world. Oh yes, they may shell out a little cash so that Bangladeshi replacements can arrive earlier than otherwise, but this is scarcely serious involvement by the great powers. The British, the former colonial power, have sent in marines to neighboring Senegal, not to liberate the captured UN troops, but to evacuate their own nationals, if necessary In the meantime, someone is making money on the diamonds. Immanuel Wallerstein -- Mine Aysen Doyran PhD Student Department of Political Science SUNY at Albany Nelson A. Rockefeller College 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102 Albany, NY 12222 _____________________________________________ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
