by Richard Gowan | Jul 22, 2008 | Africa, Conflict and security, Cooperation and coherence
Hardly had I posted my take on the current peacekeeping crisis yesterday than Thorsten Benner and his colleagues at GPPi published this op-ed in the IHT:
UN peacekeeping is the victim of its own success: Never before in their 60-year history have blue helmets been in such high demand. About 110,000 personnel are deployed in 20 peace operations around the world, more than a six-fold increase from 10 years ago.
However, UN member states have neglected making crucial investments in the support infrastructure for an expanding network of large peace operations with increasingly complex tasks, from protecting civilians to rebuilding defunct institutions in post-conflict states. As a result, the UN apparatus is severely overstretched, exhibiting increasingly serious pathologies ranging from sluggish deployments to shocking sexual abuse scandals.
Worse yet, the Security Council has returned to the ill-fated practice of sending peacekeepers into ever-more hostile environments where there simply is no peace to keep.
Recent reports from Darfur, the largest and most expensive UN mission to date, are reminiscent of the news from Bosnia in the weeks before the fall of Srebrenica: UN peacekeepers, facing a logistical and political nightmare, are unable to defend themselves, let alone protect the civilian population. Were further large-scale atrocities to occur under the UN’s watch in Darfur, the repercussions would threaten to undermine the entire business of peace operations.
Thorsten and I often find ourselves on the same page – we’re both advocates of greater European engagement in Iraq, for example. I hope that, when it comes to peacekeeping, we’re both wrong. If we’re right, it’s going to be grim out there.
by Richard Gowan | Jul 21, 2008 | Cooperation and coherence, Off topic
It’s a sad fact of life that very few rock bands address the sort of issues that we write about on this blog. The future of UN reform? With the admittedly mighty exception of Megadeath’s “United Abominations” album last year (sample lyrics: “Saddam Hussein violated 17 UN resolutions/ The UN was asked to join the war in Iraq/ The US invaded, Ha!/ There was no UN!) it’s a pretty thin field.
What about the G8 and the worsening economy? Not even Megadeath’s Dave Mustaine has opined on the Hokkaido summit in song (I’m not counting Bono and Geldof here, on the grounds that they have sensible things to say, and they say them rather than sing). So a big hand, please, for the Midnight Juggernauts, an Australian band who seem to want to stuff the entire cooperation and coherence agenda into their song “Into the Galaxy”: “United Nations/ Inter Relations/ A declaration/ Of hypertension/ Emerging Summits/ Pre-emptive plummet…” That’s just verse two: you try to work out what they’re warbling on about…
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6SKNEYvZvQ]
* On balance, my answer is no, we simply can’t be seen to advocate that falsetto, although you have to admire the unashamed use of synths.
by Alex Evans | Jul 21, 2008 | Global system, Influence and networks, Middle East and North Africa, North America
As David put it a while back: just what we need, another moron.
Asked by ABC’s Diane Sawyer Monday morning whether the “the situation in Afghanistan in precarious and urgent,” McCain responded:
“I think it’s serious. . . . It’s a serious situation, but there’s a lot of things we need to do. We have a lot of work to do and I’m afraid it’s a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq/Pakistan border,” said McCain, R-Ariz., said on “Good Morning America.”
by Daniel Korski | Jul 18, 2008 | Conflict and security, Cooperation and coherence, UK
A new draft study is about to be presented to the British Prime Minister, which will suggest ways to improve what’s now being called “civilian effects” i.e. what can be achieved in places like Iraq in support of the armed forces, but with non-military means.
Complaints from the military about the role of DfiD, especially in southern Afghanistan, have grown louder over the last few months. The Times’s Anthony Lloyd claimed soldiers in Musa Quala said of the Provincial Reconstruction Team:
They wouldn’t know how to pour p*** from a boot if the instructions were on the heel,” one soldier remarked. “That’s the PRT.”
The study will seek to deal with this kind of criticism. But it will be the umpteenth such study about how the UK “does conflict” if you include the capability reviews, the CRI study, DfiD’s work on conflict, various internal reviews etc. And while the PM has defied many in taking up the “stabilisation issue”, where he could have focused on more traditional development matters exclusively, change is not happening quickly enough.
The question being debated in No. 10 now, as part of the study, is whether to create a civilian reserve corps like the U.S ; or to use the chance to steel David Cameron’s idea of a JFK-style Peace Corps for kids. Part of the problem is that since the PM announced the establishment of a force of 1,000 civilians including police, members of the emergency services and judges – ready to be deployed to conflict zones around the world – as part of his National Security Strategy, nothing much has happened.
Both the Reserve and the Youth Corps are needed, but mixing the two concepts is a seriously bad, bad idea. Instead, the PM should be bold and go for three things:
- The Youth Corps
- A U.S-style Civilian Reserve
- Back a European Civilian Reserve into which the UK could plug
The latter would encourage other European allies to build their capabilities. If there is over-lap between the three, great. But if not, don’t force it. It would take away from each one.
by Daniel Korski | Jul 17, 2008 | Conflict and security, Cooperation and coherence, North America
After several years, the U.S government finally unveiled a new personnel cadre – the Civilian Response Corps of the United States of America – who will deploy, alongside the U.S military, into post-conflict theatres. Readers will recall that Prime Minister Brown promised a British version when he launched the UK’s National Security Strategy (although nothing seems to have happened since).
Once the hoopla dies down, the Civilian Response Corps is actually a quite modest version of what was originally in President Bush’ 2007 State of the Union Address. Then he said he wanted to “establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps”, which would
function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them.
The Address came after several years of trying to establish the State Department’s post-conflict office, but was probably motivated by the-then arrival of General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker in Baghdad, both of whom wanted not only a surge of troops, but of civilians too.
However, the Civilian Response Corps consists of federal employees, not volunteers from the private sector, state and local governments. It is, in effect, bureaucratic fat built into the system so that the U.S government has the necessary in-house capacity to draw-on. This, of course, is good. But it is hardly an amazing breakthrough. The 250 posts it funds cannot even fill 300 Iraq jobs that are due to come up next year.
Verdict: A good move. One that should encourage others – like the Europeans – to set-up a civilian reserve, as I wrote here. But far from what is needed and what should be expected after several years of work.
