August 31, 2015: Strategy Page

The UN is rethinking its approach to peacekeeping operations. What was once a small force, which mainly monitored areas where peace had been worked out, the UN now finds itself with a lot more peacekeepers and many of them under fire. After the Cold War ended in 1991 the changes began. After 2000 the UN peacekeeper force expanded from 20,000 to over 120,000. This was complicated by the growing use of Islamic terrorism against UN personnel. That meant it had become more dangerous to be a peacekeeper. Despite the increasing Islamic terror attacks the UN's peacekeeping army suffers less than a hundred combat deaths a year. More than ten times that number are wounded, injured in accidents, or disabled by disease. The peacekeeper combat fatalities come out to 90-110 per 100,000 troops per year. In Afghanistan foreign troops lost about 350-450 in 2012. At the peak of the fighting (2005-7) in Iraq, the losses were 500-600 per 100,000. The rate for U.S. troops in Vietnam and World War II was about 1,500 per 100,000 troops. So the UN peacekeepers are often seeing some considerable violence but at less than a third of the rate of troops in actual contemporary wars and much less than in 20th century conflicts. Still, it’s a lot more violent than Cold War era peacekeeping.

But it’s not the casualties that are causing the biggest problem but the increase in deliberate attacks and, to put it bluntly, the use of terror against the peacekeepers. This has made more countries reluctant to supply peacekeepers, especially Moslem countries, whose troops are accused of being heretics (and not just “enemies of Islam”) by Islamic terrorists and their many supporters among the Moslem population under peacekeeper protection. Most of the peacekeepers have come from South Asia (Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Nepal) and most of these are Moslem. Pakistan has been one of the most frequent contributors, sending nearly 150,000 troops to over forty UN peacekeeping operations in 23 countries over the last half century. The Pakistani troops suffered a death rate of 92 per 100,000 but it could have been worse were not the South Asian troops among the best trained and most professional in the UN force.

It’s not just the growing terrorism that is causing difficulty in getting more troops for peacekeeping duty. While the casualties have something to do with this, corruption and lack of success are more often discouraging countries from contributing. The corruption angle is interesting, as it pertains both to the corruption within the UN bureaucracy and the corrupt atmosphere the peacekeepers operate in and often succumb to. Then there is the criticism of how the UN manages these missions. Casualties are expected but the contributing countries feel a lot of their troop losses are the result of restrictive UN rules that limit what peacekeepers can do. This, in turn, is believed most responsible for a lack of success for the peacekeeping missions.

In addition India and Pakistan are not happy with the lack of volunteers from other major nations. The chief reasons for that are the same ones annoying the current peacekeepers (corruption and restrictive rules of engagement). In addition, the major military powers (with the exception of China and Russia) feel they already contribute quite a lot in the form of money to pay the peacekeepers. And the contributors are also upset at the lack of results. A growing number of UN members, including many who contribute little money and no personnel for peacekeeping are coming to realize that the original goals (keeping the peace) are often not met and the peacekeepers will never turn into a military organization that will be able to impose peace. While the UN likes to condemn (bad behavior) and demand that people behave, most member states do not support trying to create a UN police force with real enforcement capabilities. None of the major world powers supports this either. So there is growing pressure to look for other ways to deal with seeming endless supply of new hotspots needing to be cooled down, much less all the older ones that are still smoldering.

Over the last decade the UN has spent $7-10 billion a year on 13-20 peacekeeping operations supported each year. Most of the money comes from the West but a lot of it comes from wealthy (usually because of oil) Moslem nations. To Islamic terrorists that makes the peacekeepers lackeys of the non-Moslem West and Arab “enemies of Islam”. The money pays for the peacekeepers and a smaller support staff. It's actually a pretty cheap way of keeping some conflicts under control or at least out of the headlines. The causes of the unrest may not be resolved by peacekeepers but at least the problem is contained and doesn't bother the rest of the world too much. This is an increasingly unpopular approach to peacekeeping and now even the UN bureaucracy is being forced to consider changes. Fewer UN members back the policy of sending peacekeepers to where they are not wanted (by the local government, usually a bad one that is often the cause of the trouble in the first place) and use some UN approved violence to go after the people responsible for the local mess and end the seemingly endless violence in some areas. This sort of thing seems fine in theory but does not always work in practice.

Meanwhile most of the money is going to a few large peacekeeping operations. Three of the largest get over half the cash and for over a decade this has been Congo, Darfur (western Sudan), and southern Sudan. Africa has the largest number of "failed states" on the planet and, as such, is most in need of outside security assistance. The Middle East is also a source of much unrest. But there the problem isn't a lack of government, just bad government. Most Middle Eastern nations are run by tyrants, who have created police states that at least keep anarchy at bay and peacekeepers out.

Religion has become a touchy subject. While Islamic radicalism is more of a problem to fellow Moslems than it is to infidels (non-Moslems), most Middle Eastern governments avoid blaming Islam for these problems. Since it's increasing difficult to pin the blame on "colonialism" or "crusaders," the Middle Eastern nations encourage other UN members to just stay away from the religious angle altogether. This has made it difficult to deal with peacekeeping issues in Moslem nations, since religion usually plays a part in creating the problem. To the UN, this is just another diplomatic problem to be dealt with, although not very well.

But overall the troops and money that keep all the peacekeeping going are in danger of fading away. Frantic diplomacy is underway by the UN to try and makes things all better, but success is not assured and every year there’s the same drama as cash shortages threaten to shut down many peacekeeping operations.

26 févr. 2015 MINUSMA

11/09/2014 JDD

18 octobre 2013 Liberation.fr (AFP)

Ryad dénonce un système inégalitaire et réclame une réforme de cette structure onusienne composée de cinq membres permanents et dix non-permanents.

L’Arabie saoudite a refusé vendredi d’entrer au Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU, pour protester contre «l’impuissance» de cette instance et son échec à régler les conflits au Proche-Orient, en particulier la crise syrienne.

«L’Arabie saoudite (...) n’a pas d’autre option que de refuser de devenir membre du Conseil de sécurité jusqu’à ce que ce dernier soit réformé et qu’on lui donne les moyens d’accomplir son devoir et d’assumer ses responsabilités pour préserver la paix et la sécurité dans le monde», a annoncé le ministère saoudien des Affaires étrangères dans un communiqué.

Le poids lourd pétrolier avait été élu jeudi, pour la première fois, membre non permanent du Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU, en même temps que le Tchad, le Chili, le Nigeria et la Lituanie. Leur mandat de deux ans doit débuter le 1er janvier 2014.

Le ministère saoudien estime que le fait «de permettre au régime en place en Syrie de tuer son peuple et de le brûler à l’arme chimique au vu et au su du monde entier sans sanctions dissuasives est une preuve claire de l’impuissance du Conseil de sécurité à accomplir son devoir et à assumer ses responsabilités».

Le communiqué dénonce «la politique de deux poids, deux mesures» du Conseil de sécurité et souligne que «la question palestinienne demeure depuis 65 ans sans règlement» et que le Conseil a échoué à débarrasser le Proche-Orient des armes de destruction massive.

16 October 2013 BBC Africa

The United Nations has appealed for more troops and equipment for its peacekeeping force in Mali.

The UN force, which took over security duties in July, has less than half of its mandated strength of more than 12,000 military personnel.

Bert Koenders, the UN's special representative to Mali, said recent attacks had been a "wake-up call".

He said the force, known as Minusma, needed more resources in order to stabilise the north of the country.

French forces led an operation to oust Islamist militants from the region in January.

A presidential election was held in Mali in July but militant attacks have resumed in the north where separatist Tuareg rebels and Islamist fighters are based.

Protect civilians

A suicide bomb attack hit the northern city of Timbuktu on 28 September and an Islamist group fired shells into Gao on 7 October.

"We are faced with numerous challenges," Bert Koenders told the UN Security Council.

"The mission lacks critical enablers - such as helicopters - to facilitate rapid deployment and access to remote areas to ensure the protection of civilians. Troop generation will have to accelerate."

The UN peacekeeping force was dealt a further blow in August by the withdrawal of a large Nigerian contingent who returned home to tackle their own Islamist insurgency.

This left Minusma with less than 6,000 troops. It is due to reach full strength with 12,640 uniformed personnel by December.

The UN force is replacing French troops, which intervened in January when Islamist militants threatened to march on the capital Bamako.

An al-Qaeda group and its allies extended their control of the north of Mali following a coup in March 2012 but they have since been forces out of the region's major cities such as Gao, Kidal and Timbuktu.

WASHINGTON, September 25 (RIA Novosti) –

 A United Nations Security Council resolution on eliminating Syria’s chemical weapons will refer to – but not automatically trigger – military action to enforce Syria’s compliance with a US-Russian deal to destroy its arsenal, The Associated Press (AP) cited a Russian diplomat as saying Wednesday.

Washington has pushed for a resolution based on Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which allows for military action to promote peace, though Russian officials have repeatedly called this unacceptable.

But Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said the text of the resolution would include a reference to Chapter 7, though noncompliance by Syria would not automatically trigger the use of force, The Associated Press (AP) reported.

An agreement on the text of the resolution is likely in the next two days, the AP cited Gatilov as saying.

His comments emerged almost simultaneously with conflicting reports from diplomats Wednesday about the state of the negotiations over the Security Council resolution.

Reuters cited two Western diplomats as saying that the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council had agreed on the core of a resolution.

The agreement came after the foreign ministers from the United States, Russia, France, China and Britain met Wednesday with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Reuters cited the diplomats as saying on condition of anonymity.

But the spokesman for Russia’s UN delegation told Reuters that this is “wishful thinking” by the Western diplomats.

“It is not the reality,” the news agency cited the spokesman as saying. “The work on the draft resolution is still going on.”

The draft resolution could be presented to the full 15-nation Security Council “soon,” Reuters cited the two Western diplomats as saying, adding that the five permanent members – who each hold veto power – would meet Friday for talks on possible peace negotiations in Geneva between the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad and rebel forces seeking to topple him.

Britain’s ambassador to the UN, Mark Lyall Grant, told the AP that he expects remaining differences over the text of the resolution to be resolved “in the next few days.”

The administration of US President Barack Obama has accused Assad’s government of responsibility for an Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack outside Damascus that Washington claims left more than 1,400 dead.

Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin, have repeatedly suggested in recent weeks that they have evidence showing the attack was likely carried out by Syrian rebels seeking to frame Assad in order to secure outside military intervention against government forces.

After weeks of intense diplomacy and an almost three-day-long marathon of talks in Geneva between Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and US Secretary of State John Kerry, Moscow and Washington reached a breakthrough agreement earlier this month to place Syria’s chemical weapons under international control for eventual destruction.

The Obama administration has insisted that a Security Council resolution must include the option of military action against Syria should Assad’s government fail to abide by the deal. It has also said it reserves the right to conduct military strikes against Syria independent of the UN.

A US official told Reuters that negotiations were continuing. “We’re making progress but we’re not done yet,” Reuters cited the official as saying.

28/05/2013 Par Jean Guisnel Défense ouverte Le Point.fr

Alors même que l'UE lève l'embargo sur les armes destinées à l'opposition syrienne, le traité sur le commerce des armes entre dans sa phase de ratification.

C'est un curieux paradoxe : alors que l'Union européenne vient d'accorder aux États-membres le droit de livrer des armes à l'opposition syrienne en levant l'embargo qui la frappait et sans aucune garantie sur leur utilisation, la période de signature du Traité sur le commerce des armes (TCA) s'ouvrira le 3 juin prochain à New York. La phase d'entrée en vigueur de ce texte essentiel pour la moralisation internationale du commerce des armes fait suite à l'adoption du traité, le 2 avril dernier, par 154 des 193 pays membres de l'ONU. La Corée du Nord, l'Iran et la Syrie avaient signé contre le traité discuté dans le cadre de l'ONU. 23 autres États s'étaient abstenus, dont les gros exportateurs que sont la Chine et la Russie, et plusieurs gros acheteurs comme l'Égypte, l'Inde et l'Indonésie.

Fabius : "Une avancée majeure"

Dès lors que les pays auront signé le traité, il faudra ensuite que celui-ci soit ratifié, c'est-à-dire que les Parlements nationaux le fassent entrer dans la loi. C'est aux États-Unis que cette ratification sera la plus problématique, car la question des armes y est un sujet très chaud au plan intérieur. La ratification ne posera en revanche pas de problème en France, qui signera le traité dès le 3 juin. Le ministre des Affaires étrangères Laurent Fabius avait déclaré lors de l'adoption du texte à l'ONU que celle-ci constituait "une avancée majeure pour le droit humanitaire international et les droits de l'homme, placés au coeur des critères que les États parties s'engagent à respecter pour réguler les transferts d'armes". Le texte entrera en vigueur lorsqu'il aura été ratifié par 50 États, ce qui pourrait intervenir dès la fin de 2014.

Un traité réclamé par les ONG

Ce nouveau texte international a été voulu par de nombreuses ONG, qui ont participé à son élaboration, les plus importantes étant Oxfam et Amnesty International. Le traité stipule que chaque pays soumet toute transaction commerciale (importation, exportation, transit, courtage ) - mais pas les transferts gratuits - à un examen national permettant de déterminer si les armes concernées seraient susceptibles de contourner un embargo international, de commettre des "violations graves" des droits de l'homme ou d'être détournées au profit de terroristes ou de criminels. C'est un processus déjà appliqué dans les grandes démocraties occidentales, très comparable à celui que met en oeuvre le Code de bonne conduite de l'Union européenne. Dès lors qu'elles sont concernées par d'autres textes, les armes NBC (nucléaires, biologiques, chimiques) ne sont pas concernées par ce texte, dont relèvent en revanche tous les armements dits "conventionnels" ou "classiques", du pistolet automatique à l'avion de chasse.

Réticences américaines

À la demande des États-Unis, qui détiennent pratiquement 50 % d'un marché mondial des armements évalué à 80 milliards de dollars par an, les munitions, les pièces détachées et les composants ne font pas partie des armes couvertes par le traité. Elles font l'objet d'une distinction, les contrôles ne s'appliquant qu'à l'exportation, et les pays n'étant pas tenus de les comptabiliser dans un registre. Pour autant, et malgré toutes ces restrictions, ce texte constitue une réelle avancée. Le secrétaire général de l'ONU Ban Ki-moon avait d'ailleurs considéré lors de l'adoption du texte que cette dernière constituait un "succès diplomatique historique", apportant "un nouvel élan bienvenu à d'autres efforts de désarmement".

May 27, 2013 Spacewar.com (AFP)

Geneva - Yemen was accused before the UN on Monday of using anti-personnel mines near its capital, even though it has signed a convention that bans all such weapons, as campaigners demanded an immediate investigation.

Members of the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, meeting at the UN in Geneva this week, demanded explanations following charges from Human Rights Watch (HRW) and others that Yemen's Republican Guards laid banned anti-personnel mines near Sanaa in 2011.

The head of Yemen's national mine action committee, Ali Mohammed al-Kadri, vowed to "thoroughly investigate" the new allegations and "if need be prosecute and punish those responsible for their use."

The International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), of which HRW is a member, said it was "deeply disturbed" by the reports, which identified the use of several types of mines that had caused civilian casualties, including children.

If confirmed, it stressed, this would be a serious violation of Yemen's obligations under the Mine Ban Treaty.

According to the organisation, 162 people, including 110 children, were believed to have been killed in Yemen in the first half of 2012 alone by mines or explosive remnants of war.

Yemen was among the first countries to sign the treaty in 1997, agreeing never to use anti-personnel mines under any circumstances.

"It is unconscionable that a state which has signed on to ban these indiscriminate weapons could allow use by government forces," ICBL chief Kasia Derlicka said in a statement.

Yemen said in 2002 it had destroyed all its landmine stockpiles and it had been expected to finish clearing all mines from its territory by 2015.

"The new findings suggest that the previous declaration of stockpile destruction was incorrect or that Yemeni forces have since acquired a new supply of anti-personnel mines, in breach of the Mine Ban Treaty," ICBL said.

Apr. 23, 2013 - By VIVEK RAGHUVANSHI – Defense News

Exporters Place Restrictions on Military Goods

NEW DELHI — The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty adopted April 3 has sent shockwaves through India’s Defence Ministry as several ongoing projects could be affected. While no MoD official would comment on whether the treaty could impact weapon imports, an MoD source said planners are extremely concerned over the fate of some ongoing contracts and future purchases.

The treaty, aimed at laying down common international standards and limiting the illicit sale of conventional arms, was passed by the UN General Assembly with an overwhelming majority of 154 votes.

Defense analysts, meanwhile, were forthright and unanimous that the treaty could affect the big-ticket Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) program and the contracted deal to buy Boeing Apache attack helicopters for the Indian Air Force.

“The treaty would pose problems for many deals for India, including the MMRCA, Apache attack helicopters — which have been selected — and anti-tank guided missiles in the offing in case the suppliers choose to apply the terms of the [treaty], since some of the deliveries and final contracts have not been signed,” defense analyst Rahul Bhonsle said.

No executive from French company Dassault Aviation, which is negotiating to sell its Rafale aircraft to India for the US $11 billion MMRCA program, would comment on whether the treaty could affect the purchase.

“As per Article 2.1 of the [treaty], India will face strict regulation or supervision from the exporter on weapons like combat aircraft, attack helicopters or stealth aircraft, warships and artillery,” said J. Jegannathan, research fellow at the Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies here.

One MoD official said the treaty favors arms exporters. India is the biggest importer of military hardware and an insignificant exporter.

According to a draft that was discussed by the principals, including the US, importers had protection with a sentence saying ongoing contracts will have to continue. The official said it is unclear what will happen to ongoing contracts.

The MoD source, however, said the defense vendor will be affected if the vendor has not taken note of the treaty’s safeguards in the contract.

An internal MoD assessment would be needed to review the situation on each of the ongoing weapons purchase programs, the source added.

“India is perhaps one of the most affected countries because two provisions of the [treaty] directly impact India’s security, these being weak provisions of illicit trafficking of weapons to terrorist groups and nonstate actors, and the second is a virtual carte blanche for arms exporters to dictate terms to arms importers, India being one of the largest importers today,” Bhonsle said.

India abstained from voting on the treaty.

“India objects to the [treaty] on several counts,” defense analyst Gurmeet Kanwal said. “First and foremost, India finds it difficult to accept that the treaty will enable arms exporting countries to impose unilateral conditions on the countries that import arms.

“The treaty has failed to address Indian concerns about the illegal transfer of arms to terrorist organizations, insurgent groups and other nonstate actors who oppose democratically elected governments.

“The treaty also does not ensure a ‘balance of obligations’ between arms exporting states and the importers of arms.”

Iran, North Korea and Syria voted against the treaty while China, India and Russia abstained.

The treaty covers tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber weapons, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and launchers, small arms and light weapons.

India, which imports nearly 70 percent of its weapons and equipment, will have to be careful in selecting the source of the supplies, some analysts said.

“India should be more concerned about some of the Western suppliers, which could potentially revoke these contracts because they are some of the major subscribers to the treaty,” said Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopalan, a senior fellow in security studies at the Observer Research Foundation here.

Des #drones en #CôteDIvoire - by @BBCAfrica #Afrique #Défense #Africa #Defence #UN #ONU http://t.co/rpHFtQ30XY

RP Defense (@RPDefense)April 17, 2013