At the end of June 2009, there were 93,000 U.N. peacekeepers deployed worldwide, but the United States had committed
| Photo Courtesy of U.N. TV |
only 93 troops. Often in these missions, developing countries have had to shoulder the burden of providing troops when these troops are inadequately trained and equipped in comparison to U.S. troops. The new administration has already taken a step in the right direction when, in his Omnibus signing statement, Obama rejected Congress's post-Somalia declaration that "no funds could be disbursed for U.N. peacekeeping operations that place U.S. troops under foreign command." This indicates that the new administration plans to reverse the trends of the Bush Administration by increasing U.S. troop commitment and logistical support to U.N. missions. In order to ensure the success of peacekeeping missions in protecting civilians and preventing conflict, the United States should do the following:
1. The United States must work with the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, Security Council members, and major troop contributing countries to ensure U.N. peace operations have the adequate resources, training, and mandates required to protect civilians from violence, and adhere to basic human rights standards. By participating more in global peacekeeping, the U.S. will encourage other nations to do the same. The reluctance of the U.S. to actively participate in past missions has opened the door for other nations to refuse troops as well. By taking a leadership role in peacekeeping, the United States could use its global influence to pressure other nations into committing the needed troops and funds. In addition to encouraging other nations to join in peacekeeping, openness by the U.S. to providing troops would allow the U.N. to deploy more quickly knowing that they can count on the vast resources of the U.S. military and civilian forces.
The United States should also be more dedicated to providing logistical support for missions. Those countries that are willing to deploy to U.N. peace operations often do not have sufficient assets to even transport their troops to the mission locations. The lack of resources for these troops means that they do not have access to food, water, accommodations, and petrol, oil, and equipment maintenance in order to sustain them on the mission. The responsibility often falls to the G-8 and other wealthy countries to provide the support logistics that help make U.N. peacekeeping missions a success. The resources of the United States include much more than money and troops, and the U.S. should be more helpful in providing the logistical structure for an effective force deployment. Helicopters, for example, are vitally important at almost every phase of peacekeeping operations. A typical operation requires about thirty-six helicopters (twenty-four utility/transport; twelve attack), yet there is currently a shortage of fifty helicopters in the three peacekeeping missions in sub-Saharan Africa (eighteen each in Darfur and 
the DRC; sixteen in Somalia). The need for helicopters is great, yet the number needed is relatively small. If the United States has the resources available it should be more open to lending them for use in peacekeeping operations.
With better preparation and training, U.S. forces would be better equipped to make the transition to peacekeeping operations. The following comes from a document reflecting the Obama administration's defense plan as reflected on Whitehouse.gov on January 21, 2009:
We must build up our civil affairs, information operations, and other units and capabilities that remain in chronic short supply; invest in foreign language training, cultural awareness, and human intelligence and other needed counterinsurgency and stabilization skill sets.
| Photo Courtesy of U.N. TV |
In addition to better preparing our own forces for peacekeeping missions, a change in the U.S. training and preparation doctrine would also provide a better framework for the use of the Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI). GPOI is designed to train and equip international peacekeepers worldwide to increase global capacity to participate in peace operations. Expanding the doctrine of U.S. training practices would spill over into GPOI training practices and lead to a better prepared and more unified international forces.
2. The administration should include conflict prevention and civilian protection as fundamental pillars of U.S. foreign policy in the next National Security Strategy of the United States. As the Stimson Center notes in its publication The Impossible Mandate?, there has never been an official U.N. doctrine on civilian protection in peacekeeping missions. It was only ten years ago, in fact, that the words "protect civilians under imminent threat" entered into U.N. mission mandates. Including civilian protection in the National Security Strategy (NSS) would send the message to other nations and the U.N. that it is time to address this matter and create a doctrine for the U.N. and other nations to adhere to in all future peacekeeping operations.
3. The U.S. should also support the creation of the United Nations Emergency Peace Service (UNEPS). Kofi Annan likened the task of building support and raising funds for each new U.N. peacekeeping mission to that of a volunteer fire chief, who is forced to raise funds, find volunteers and secure a fire truck for each new fire.Currently, "rapid deployment" is defined as 30 days for a "traditional" peacekeeping mission (where all parties agree to allow in peacekeepers) and 90 days for "complex" missions (where spoilers attempt to derail a peace agreement). Over the last 15 years, however, the U.N. has taken, on average, 46 days to begin the deployment of peacekeepers and 13 months to fully staff missions involving rapid deployment or crisis response. This length of time is way too long for a mission to be effective, and the necessity for faster deployment is clearly there.
On July 31, 2007 the U.N. Security Council mandated the creation of the United Nations-African Union hybrid Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) in Resolution 1769. The resolution authorized the deployment of up to 19,555 military personnel and 6,432 police personnel (26,000 combined) supported by a "significant civilian component." As of February 28, 2009 force strength was at 15,114 total uniformed personnel (including both troops and police components) supported by 863 international civilian personnel, 1,417 local civilian staff, and 295 United Nations volunteers.
UNEPS was proposed as a permanent emergency response service designed to complement, not replace existing peace operations. UNEPS would have first in - first out capabilities, designed to supplement the U.N.'s capacity to provide stability, peace, and relief in deadly emergencies. UNEPS would individually recruit, train and employ personnel with a wide range of skills, including civilian police, military, judicial experts and relief professionals. This ensures that missions would not fail due to a lack of skills, equipment, cohesiveness, experience in resolving conflicts, or gender, national or religious imbalance. Because UNEPS will be a force entirely employed by the U.N., it would be immediately available to respond to a crisis.
Support for a permanent peacekeeping force by the public is increasing. A recent poll showed 64 percent of the population in 14 different countries agreed that the U.N. should have a permanent peacekeeping force. In the United States, an impressive 72 percent were in favor of such a force.
Civilian Response Corps
In addition to increased support of U.N. peacekeeping efforts, The United States must also increase its own capacity to respond to peacekeeping situations in terms of peace building and reconstruction activities. The most effective way to prevent future peacekeeping operations in areas that have already been in conflict is to ensure that societal reconstruction and state building is well-implemented.
| Photo Courtesy of U.N. TV |
The United States should continue to build up the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS) with dedicated leadership and an effective budget. The goal of the S/CRS is to lead, coordinate and institutionalize U.S. Government civilian capacity to prevent or prepare for post-conflict situations, and to help stabilize and reconstruct societies in transition from conflict or civil strife, so they can reach a sustainable path toward peace, democracy and a market economy. These goals would be reached through the efforts of the Civilian Response Corps. In order to be successful, the S/CRS should effectively staff the Civilian Response Corps (CRC) with U.S. Government civilian employees (doctors, lawyers, engineers, city planners, police, etc.) who are trained for post-conflict situations.
The corps could be supported by better funding of the Conflict Response Fund to provide the State Department with money to employ active, standby, and reserve components of the corps to draw upon quickly in response to emergencies. This rapid response ability of the corps would enable it to act more effectively and efficiently in dealing with crises. The Bush Administration requested $248 million to fund the CRC, but the S/CRS received only $55 million to fund the active and standby components. An additional $75 million was allocated to the S/CRS in the Omnibus spending package, but this $130 million total falls well short of the $248 million needed to effectively staff and fund the CRC.
The future success of the CRC, however, depends strongly on the new administration making the funding of the S/CRS and the CRC a priority. No money has been allocated yet for the Crisis Response Fund, which, according to the Friends' Committee for National Legislation, needs $50 million available for rapid allocation to support genocide, atrocity, and conflict prevention activities between budget cycles.
Conclusion
The U.S. and the U.N. would both benefit greatly from increased U.S. support and participation for U.N. peacekeeping. An increase in the amount of money and troops the United States commits to these missions is equally as important as the example the U.S. would set for other nations to support peacekeeping operations. Many countries globally look to the example set by the United States, especially in the area of international relations. Taking the lead on U.N. peacekeeping would encourage others to partake in missions, or at least reevaluate their own contributions to U.N. operations. The advanced military and training tactics of the U.S. would be invaluable to all international troops and would increase the prospects of protecting civilian lives. The influence wielded by the U.S. world-wide would help to strengthen any U.N. agreements, mandates, or doctrines that are passed. By strengthening these items, the U.S. can speed up the process by which the U.N. is able to deploy forces and help prevent further conflict and protect civilians.
