UN Peacekeeping Why not in Syria
and Iraq?
"Do
you see UN Peacekeeping as a viable option to help solve the humanitarian
crises in Syria and Iraq?” I asked Hervé Ladsous, the United Nations Under Secretary
General for Peacekeeping Operations. Couldn’t UN Peacekeepers help remedy the
enormous humanitarian dilemma that has resulted from these two crises with
millions now suffering from a shortage of food and clean water?
“The
answer to your question is no,” stated Mr. Ladsous, without even the slightest
hesitation. “We wish we could help the people suffering, but the magnitude of
the two crises is simply much too large for the UN to handle.” It was at that
point I found myself disagreeing with one of the world’s leaders in
peacekeeping. For if we wish to help solve two of the worst humanitarian crises
in recent history, UN Peacekeepers must be involved.
They
must be involved because they are undoubtedly the best and most well-trained
peacekeeping group in the entire world. They are experts at delivering supplies
to those who need them, and quickly. They are adept at helping to mend
differences between ethnic groups, often healing situations that many had
previously thought were beyond repair. They remain 100 percent committed to
their missions no matter the circumstance--some even paying the ultimate price
in a concerted effort to help make the world a better place.
Now,
I understand that some of you may be looking at me sideways at this point, and
are thinking of the various studies that have recently come out declaring that
UN Peacekeeping is only marginally effective, if that. You probably want an
answer for some of the UN Peacekeeping’s failures--like the Rwanda catastrophe
in 1994 or Kosovo’s bloody civil war in 1999, and you deserve one.
And
yet, I insist that UN Peacekeepers must go in to Syria and Iraq. They ought to
be deployed to those countries in mass numbers, as soon as humanly possible. This
is because although UN Peacekeeping may have made major mistakes in the past,
these mistakes actually have little to do with the effectiveness of UN
peacekeepers—and much more to do with a severe lack of funding and support.
Take
for instance Rwanda. France, the UK, and the US all used their influence to
prevent reinforcement peacekeepers from being sent in only a few weeks after
the killings had begun. They also refused to label the mass killings occurring
as “genocide," thereby ruling out the possibility of any kind of
humanitarian military intervention. Additionally, Belgian peacekeepers, which
made up a large portion of the UN peacekeepers in Rwanda, were pulled out of
the conflict shortly after it had begun. Furthermore, the remaining
peacekeepers had been given orders by the UN not to fire unless fired
upon--even if a civilian’s life was at risk.
With
adequate funding and support, however, the UN has recently enjoyed a number of
successful missions in the last decade. A recent UN Peacekeeping mission in
Haiti (MINUSTAH) has helped to reduce
the number of internally displaced persons by 77% and has trained over 5,000
Haitian police officers, according to the Better World Campaign. In April, a UN
Peacekeeping mission ended in Côte d'Ivoire, which was incredibly successful in
helping to resolve the country’s conflicts and build up its infrastructure and
government; Côte d'Ivoire’s economy has grown more than 8.5% in the last year
and is scheduled to have its first democratic election in years in 2015.
UN
Peacekeeping missions, with adequate funding and support, would undoubtedly
provide much-needed assistance to the millions of refugees of the crises in
Iraq and Syria. They would enable millions of people to get the food, water and
resources they would need to survive while their respective countries seek to
safely resolve the ongoing conflicts. And, while they might not be able to
fully solve two of the most intractable conflicts on earth, they would
certainly make an impact.
No comments:
Post a Comment