 |
The Rt Hon Sir Malcolm Bruce MPLiberal Democrat MP for Gordon |
 |
In regard to post-conflict regions, is the UN fit for purpose?
January 23, 2012 9:00 AM
By Malcolm Bruce MP in Politics First Magazine
By Malcolm Bruce MP in Politics First Magazine
Nations emerging from conflict are inherently more fragile, have high levels of poverty and are at great risk of falling back into war. These are the prime reasons why more UK aid is going to precisely these countries. It is inherently risky and in many cases cannot be achieved without the presence of the United Nations.
Yet, the UN comes under sustained criticism for its lack of coherent organisation, which is institutionalised by the political share-out of jobs and appointments on which the UN depends.
There are many dedicated, brave and tireless people of most nationalities working for UN organisations in hotspots around the world. Yet the organisation is often characterised as both extravagant and ineffective.
UN organisations are often seen as jostling for position in different scenarios and certainly none want to be left out, making co-ordination cumbersome and even dysfunctional.
In war torn countries such as the DRC and South Sudan, the UN has its largest presence of peacekeepers costing respectively about $1.4 billion and $750 million a year. Yet, when conflict occurs, such as mass rapes in DRC or bloody cattle raids in South Sudan, the UN is often somewhere else.
Its mandate is often heavily qualified and UN troops are secondments from the armies of member states who see it as a lucrative way of getting their forces trained at the UN's expense. The UN has, of course, suffered casualties, and often to civilians in bomb attacks or ambushes. In 2011 25 civilians, nine peacekeepers and a military adviser working for the UN were killed.
The UN currently has 16 peacekeeping missions operating in four continents. All have different mandates and a varied mix of national forces. The truth is expectations of what the UN can or will do are not matched by the reality on the ground.
For example, in the DRC, where there is an incidence of violence or rape, even if MONUSCO representatives are first on the scene they can neither arrest nor detain suspects so that by the time national forces arrive the prime suspects have disappeared back into the bush.
In South Sudan, UNMISS has not reached full strength nor is it established in the hub and spoke deployment, which should enable faster and more effective response.
In her New Year message, UN Secretary General's Special Representative to South Sudan, Hilde Johnson said that UNMISS would do its utmost to promote peace and stability but pointed out that "If everyone puts their community first and really doesn't care that much about the nation as such, South Sudan can fail."
She was referring specifically to inter community violence in Jonglei State that has claimed hundreds of lives in recent weeks and displaced thousands.
In its current capacity UNMISS has limited ability to prevent such violent incidents let alone step in when they occur. These are driven, absurdly to an outsider, by the high bride dowry price leading to armed former rebels seizing their neighbours' assets.
UN representatives in country complain they have limited capacity for rapid response due to lack of intelligence information and shortage of helicopters aggravated by recent incidents where helicopters have come under attack leading to an unwillingness by contributor nations to provide more.
Nevertheless, the role of the UN as both witnesses, in Gaza and Sudan for example, and as a deterrence to conflict cannot be underestimated.
Yet, infamously, UN troops stood aside in Rwanda and Sebrenica, when massacres were taking place due to the lack of a clear mandate from New York.
This led to the Responsibility to Protect Resolution, authorising the UN to intervene in such circumstances in the future.
In reality, the UN is only as good as the member states and the Security Council allows it to be. If a flexible rapid response to violence in a post conflict situation is what is expected then the UN needs not just an appropriate mandate but the structure, support and equipment to deliver it.
For active intervention where troops are put in harm's way, the UN relies on resolutions permitting a small number of nations to act in concert as was the case in the First Gulf War, Afghanistan and Libya.
The UN's limitations are precisely the legacy of its structure and the responsibility of member states. Reform would be ideal but, meanwhile we must live with reality.
ENDS