April, 2003

The Future of International Peacekeeping Forces

Prepared by Abu Bakr Al-Dessouqi

Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, former UN secretary-general, secretary-general of the International Organisation of the Francophonie, and founder and first editor-in-chief of Al-Siyassa Al-Dawliya, was guest of honour at a roundtable discussion on 'The future of international peacekeeping forces.' The discussion, chaired by Dr. Osama Al-Ghazali Harb, editor-in-chief of Al-Siyassa Al-Dawliya, took place on 2 January 2003 with the participation of a score of experts, including: General Ahmed Fakhr, General Ahmed Abdel-Halim, Dr. Mohammed Kadri Said, Brigadier Ayman Salama and Dr. Bahgat Korani.

Discussion revolved around the impact of the world order on the composition, role and functioning of UN peacekeeping forces. Dr. Boutros-Ghali shared some insights gleaned from his experience in this respect.

Dr. Boutros-Ghali identified three historical periods in the development of UN peacekeeping forces. These forces were first employed in 1956 to separate Egyptian and Israeli forces in Sinai after the Suez War. This was during the Cold War period when the international order was dominated by two superpowers that usually intervened to settle disputes within their spheres of interest. UN forces during this first period could only be deployed by the agreement of the two superpowers, the combatants involved in the conflict and after a ceasefire or disengagement agreement was in place. In other words, UN forces were there to bolster a peace that already existed, and could use force only in self-defence.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, a second period began in which numerous conflicts and civil wars broke out, as most strong countries were disinclined to become actively involved in world affairs. With even internal civil conflicts involving external forces supporting various factions, the situation for peacekeeping changed. It became necessary for the UN to intervene without the approval of all conflicting parties, as it did in Somalia. Often, UN forces were deployed before hostilities had ceased and were required to supervise and support the running of various civil functions when governments collapsed. In Kosovo, for example, UN forces were charged with the protection of the temporary government.

During this period, argument and misunderstanding arose over the exact role of UN peacekeeping forces: were they to maintain strict neutrality, using force only when directly attacked, or were they obliged to protect civilians and refugees that were targeted in the conflict? Confusion over this point led to problems in maintaining the peace and the UN's image was seriously tarnished. The involvement of multinational forces together with UN forces during this period -such as in the case of NATO forces in Yugoslavia- further weakened the image of the UN, since the former held the overwhelming power on the ground, and adhered to their own leadership and strategies.

The events of 11 September 2001 ushered in the third period, with new problems in peacekeeping. This phase has been characterised by a basic shift in the nature of international conflict, with the world's only superpower attacked by a terrorist organisation based far beyond its borders. The ensuing retaliations covered a wide range of activities and geographic locations. The question now appears to be how to define the point of victory and where the conflict ends. Moreover, the laws and rules that have traditionally regulated conflicts no longer appear to apply, and there is a need to develop a new body of international law to deal with this situation.

In this new world order, argues Dr. Boutros-Ghali, the US has effective political, military and financial control over peacekeeping activities. Its top priority has now become security rather than the defence of human rights. The US today works outside the UN, preferring to depend on multinational forces from NATO when it wishes to intervene on the international scene.

The rise of the US has been accompanied, and strengthened by, a disinclination on the part of many strong countries to become actively involved in international affairs. Japan, for example, has strong domestic opposition to military intervention abroad. The Chinese are preoccupied with their domestic concerns, and are not, at this point, interested in playing a leading international role. India after Nehru has also been less involved. Yet the existence of various powers is important to curb the unilateral policies of the US.

The problems and divisions of the world order are reflected within the UN peacekeeping forces. Dr. Boutros-Ghali pointed out several situations that, in his view, have a negative impact on the UN's capabilities. In view of financial problems, the UN is dependent on rich countries that can afford to finance such operations. Dr. Boutros-Ghali notes a growing regionalism, where European countries do not wish to send troops outside Europe, Asian countries want to participate in peacekeeping missions only in Asia and so on. These regional divisions are compounded by the differences between rich and poor countries, where the rich supply equipment, transportation and leadership, and the poor supply the troops. Among the troops from third world countries, there are also great variations in the level of training and equipment as well as military background and tradition. Some forces involved in UN peacekeeping missions staged coups upon returning to their countries, in protest of their backward conditions and low pay -for example, Fiji-. This has discouraged some countries from participating in UN peacekeeping missions for fear of destabilising their military.

Dr. Boutros-Ghali believes that UN peacekeeping forces will still have a role to play in the future, especially in the traditional form of maintaining a truce already in existence. There is also a need to develop institutions to deal with peace-building, whether in re-establishing the institutions of a collapsed state, or creating normal relations between antagonistic states. Such institutions need to be involved for a year or two after the conflict ends to ensure that peace takes hold and hostilities do not break out again.

For the next 30 to 40 years, Dr. Boutros-Ghali does not see an end to this unipolar international system. He points out, however, that there is a historical trend within US society that supports multilateralism and democracy in international politics. The US played an important role in the establishment of both the League of Nations and the UN. It is hoped that such a trend could again come to the fore and curb the present US inclination to use its overwhelming force in settling conflicts.