No Peacekeeping

It seems that amidst the vast amount of money he's prepared to budget for defense, the Bush administration couldn't be bothered to fully fund peacekeeping operations, choosing instead to pick a figure that's $500 million short of what we're supposed to pony up. This sort of thing is just incredibly short-sighted.

Traditional peacekeeping missions aren't very exciting. They involve a situation where two (or more) parties to a conflict reach some kind of conflict-ending agreement and, as part of the agreement, both parties agree to accept the presence of some peacekeepers. After all, two groups of people who were trying to kill each other on Monday probably aren't going to trust each other on Wednesday, even if they reach a negotiated settlement to the conflict on Tuesday. Missions of this sort have a decent track record of success, and they're quite cheap. Oftentimes, there's no real need for peacekeepers to do much of anything. The point is simply that their presence helps resolve a prisoner's dilemma.

Unfortunately, in the US there's a strong tendency for discussions of humanitarianism abroad to emphasize very costly and destructive combat operations and totally neglect cheaper, easier, and more effective methods like participating in and funding consensual peacemaking. My guess is that, for example, approximately zero percent of the "liberal hawks" who've accused Iraq War opponents of neglecting the humanitarian plight of the Iraqi people will speak up to complain about this aspect of the Bush budget.

Comments

Very true about liberal hawks. Liberal Hawks like Roger Cohen often care more about showing how macho they are to compensate for a life spent being paid to write and think instead of being "great men of action." Their writing is meant to satisfy their own egos, not to actually help people. Contrast that with the writing of someone like Samantha Power, an Iraq War opponent, who focuses on the moral responsibility of major powers to prevent and / or stop genocides out of experience watching genocide carried out (in her case, Bosnia) and basic human morality. Besides Holbrooke, who comes out looking good from her book and is inspired as such due to the legacy of the Holocaust, it is hard to point to any liberal hawk who actually seems to care about actual people and populations.

Posted by Reality Man | February 6, 2008 12:59 PM

Another problem is that peacekeeping missions are frequently administered by the UN, and the Republicans are unwilling to cooperate with the UN and unwilling to participate in UN peacekeeping operations. So their alternative is to ignore these sorts of international activities.

Posted by Ray | February 6, 2008 1:18 PM

More. Posts. Like. This.

Do an occasional open thread to let the Obama and Clinton people hurl feces at each other. I want to hear you on refocusing America's military priorities.

Posted by Pithlord | February 6, 2008 1:35 PM

Picking apart any defense budget with an eye towards how the U.S. is approaching various peacekeeping operations is fallacy. A better question to analyze first is does the U.S. actually want peace in all parts of the world? Certainly aggression, anarchy and war in some parts of the world serve our purposes. Lack of peacekeeping efforts there are perfectly understandable.

Posted by steve duncan | February 6, 2008 1:37 PM

My guess is that, for example, approximately zero percent of the "liberal hawks" who've accused Iraq War opponents of neglecting the humanitarian plight of the Iraqi people will speak up to complain about this aspect of the Bush budget.

Conversely, "liberal doves" don't seem to care much about all the Iraqis that were being killed by the 13 years of sanctions before we invaded. Apparently, it's only Iraqis killed by American bombs that matter. If they die from malnutrition or disease because we cut off their food and medical supplies, that's just fine and dandy.

Posted by Mixner | February 6, 2008 1:59 PM

The problem is geography dude. Not being a conspiracy theorist or anything, I nevertheless think that we continue to wallow in the "Mother of all Peacekeeping Missions" because of the presence of oil.

Unfortunately, this little coincidence has only served to buttress the argument of loons like Hugo Chavez, who believe we'll be imposing peacekeeping operations on him shortly, and likes to keep his ignorant population in fear of this possibility.

Boy, we're sure good at this credibility stuff.

Posted by ghost | February 6, 2008 2:51 PM

My guess is that, for example, approximately zero percent of the "liberal hawks" who've accused Iraq War opponents of neglecting the humanitarian plight of the Iraqi people will speak up to complain about this aspect of the Bush budget.

"Conversely, "liberal doves" don't seem to care much about all the Iraqis that were being killed by the 13 years of sanctions before we invaded. Apparently, it's only Iraqis killed by American bombs that matter. If they die from malnutrition or disease because we cut off their food and medical supplies, that's just fine and dandy."

And the anti-war rhetoric of liberal doves no doubt feeds into American nativism. All of the talk about democracy never working in Iraq, we're wasting our money on the dusky foreigners, etc. It's what Kerry was pandering to when he said we should be building Firehouses instead of spending the money on Iraq.

I believe an Obama administration would be much better for creaing a progressive movement, I do think Hillary will probably - it's a guess- be better on foreign policy.

Although, Bill Clinton in the glorious Golden 90s sat by and watched the genocide in Rwanda (he did later apologize something he's good at) while Obama has Samantha Power as a foreign policy advisor. Huge contrast there.

I also think Billary will galvanize the Rightwing and could lead to the election of McCain, which would be a huge irony for the supposed anti-war Billary supporters.

Posted by Peter K. | February 6, 2008 2:53 PM

Unfortunately, in the US there's a strong tendency for discussions of humanitarianism abroad to emphasize very costly and destructive combat operations and totally neglect cheaper, easier, and more effective methods like participating in and funding consensual peacemaking

For starters, "cheaper" programs means less funding for contractors.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | February 6, 2008 3:14 PM

For the record, there is no UN peacekeeping mission in Iraq. The UN Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI) is an operation of the UN's Department of Political Affairs. In addition to the shortchanging of UN peacekeeping missions, though, the US allocated a mere $51 million to the political missions in Iraq and Afghanistan - a number that obviously pales in comparison to the hundreds of billions of dollars that the US has spent on wars in those two countries.

Matt is correct about both the cost advantages and the effectiveness of international peacekeeping missions. According to a recent Government Accountability Office study, UN peacekeeping operations can be up to EIGHT times cheaper than unilateral US endeavors.

UN peacekeepers perform many crucial functions, and their successes are frequently overlooked, but, as Matt suggests, their mere presence can often act as a deterrent. Even the undermanned, underfunded, and neglected African Union monitoring force in Darfur was remarkably successful at deterring Janjaweed attacks where they were stationed.

Posted by John Boonstra | February 6, 2008 3:18 PM

It's not just the Bush Administration. The US has never given much support (other than oral) to UN peacekeeping missions. One of the reasons was burden-sharing: it was recognized that European allies were better at this sort of thing, while Americans were better at search-and-destroy missions (and the threat thereof).

I don't think the rest of the world is missing a minute's sleep from the US's dislike of - or at best disinterest in - blue helmets. Nothing new under the sun.

Posted by Hans B | February 6, 2008 3:38 PM

"the Bush administration couldn't be bothered to fully fund peacekeeping operations"

It's like 2003 in Afghanistan all over again. Just like his daddy, who couldn't be bothered to help put the Afghans back on their feet after the Soviets left. Did the men in the family leave their brains at the door when they left Yale?

Posted by cmholm | February 6, 2008 3:48 PM

The US already does enough - the real problem is getting countries that "free ride" and contribute little or nothing to patrolling the oceans, putting out brushfires, to cough up their fair share. Meaning nations like Germany, Indonesia, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, Italy, Spain, China do little in the way of money or men to keep land peace or maintain global shipping as safe.

Japan does it's fair share with money for missions and it's SDF going after pirates and smugglers. Same with Australia, Morocco, Bangladesh, Chile, Peru, Singapore, Nigeria, the Scandanavian nations chipping in heavily with manpower and/or resources. France has done a lot even with its US frictions in stomping out problems in former French black African colonies and in the ME.

When you factor in the costs of the US Navy keeping piracy down, sea lanes open and oil flowing from the Gulf...the US Army & Marines had millions of men and hundreds of billions of dollars directed at being the Cold War Peacekeepers in Europe and Korea, and are still in those places plus Bosnia.

Want more UN peacekeepers? Change the UN funding to make countries making money hand over fist like China, Saudi Arabia, Germany, and Russia chip in more. Account for the heavy US manpower and resources already devoted to freedom of the seas and maintaining international trade being safe, and their long-term peacekeeping missions in Europe, Asia, and many countries of the Gulf, plus their lead in counter-terror assistance in 60 countries. America does enough. Want people in Darfur and the UN to handle all other African, ME, and SE Asian matters? Request the nations that never chip in to do that.

Posted by chris ford | February 6, 2008 6:39 PM

The UN is in an existential crisis. Simply writing checks is not going to address the problem. Writing a smaller check, and seriously considering other options, may be the most helpful policy the US can adopt vis a vis "the world body".

Wouldn't we all really be better off with root-and-branch reform?

Posted by Robert Powell | February 7, 2008 3:28 AM

For what it's worth, the RAND Corporation published a study in 2005 (it's mentioned in the same Atlantic Monthly with the "How We Would Fight China" Kaplan article on the cover) about how the UN actually has a better track record of successful peacekeeping than the US. However, it is illegal due to Republican idiocy to have American soldiers take part in such operations. Meanwhile, Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and somehow Canadians make up the bulk of UN peacekeepers. Germany is expanding its forces explicitly for peacekeeping purposes.

Posted by Reality Man | February 7, 2008 7:23 AM

In fairness, "the UN actually has a better track record" because they don't do anything particularly difficult when they do anything at all.

We fight wars, and once upon a time even won them. That's why the UN exists in the first place. UN "Peacekeepers" usually go into an area after the fighting has largely stopped and/or the population has already been massacred. Then they hang around for months or years, in some cases for decades, some of them benefiting from various kinds of trafficking, and all of them providing excellent junket venues for politicians. In some cases they provide cover for one faction or another to attack their rivals, as has been the case in South Lebanon and, more famously, Srebrenica.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 7, 2008 11:07 AM

Actual research, undertaken by the Human Security Report Project (now at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver), finds that the UN contributes more to global peace than you realize. To quote the description of the Human Security Report (2005):

"The first Human Security Report documents a dramatic, but largely unknown, decline in the number of wars, genocides and human rights abuse over the past decade. Published by Oxford University Press, the Report argues that the single most compelling explanation for these changes is found in the unprecedented upsurge of international activism, spearheaded by the UN, which took place in the wake of the Cold War."

Posted by I cant believe Im flacking for the UN but | February 7, 2008 2:44 PM

"Actual research, undertaken by the Human Security Report Project (now at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver), finds that the UN contributes more to global peace than you realize."

How much does it contribute to rape and sexual assault? It seems like every time some third world country (e.g., Pakistan) rents out its troops to the UN as blue-helmeted peace keepers, the population they are supposed to protect gets screwed, literally.

Posted by Fred | February 7, 2008 2:54 PM

As usual we argue about the small picture totally missing the big picture. Someone mentioned that "we are better at search and destroy missions". Well put, but more accurately we are surrogate henchmen for (in this case) Saudi Arabia and Israel. Our military force has become little more than mercenaries for hire at the highest level. I'm not accusing our courageous troops--I mean the multi-national corporations who manufacture the news and lobby our government to take military action to "protect U.S. interests".

15 Saudi's and a hand full of other mid-eastern guys fly a plane into the twin towers and we attack Afghanistan because that's where they train terrorists. That part makes a little sense but they also train in North Africa. But who gains the most (or had the most to fear from Sadaam). Short answer--not the U. S. of A. Start with Iran and Saudia Arabia not to mention Kuwait--all of which have significant oil reserves.

And yeah, and is it just a ccoincidence that both Bush's and Cheney, not to mention Haliburton, are "buddy-buddy" with the Saudi's.

And, at the same time do you think any of these multi-national corporations make money or get rich from peace keeping missions ? Do you think Blackwater and defence contractors bid or get no-bid contracts with the U.N. ?

The answer is now and always will be "follow the money". Big Pentagon budgets mean big profits to war profiteers. It's been going on in this country since the Civil War.

I'm not at all against killing a few bad guys. However, selling the blood and sweat of our young men and women, leaving their children without parents so CEO's in Europe and the U.S. can earn 400 times the salaries of our soldier's parents is obscene.

And if you think I'm a conspiracy terrorists look at history. The British have a long tradition of recruiting other warriors like the Scots and Sihk's to do their dirty work. The U.S. used the Mujahadin in Afganistan and the Hmong's in Cambodia and a host of others in South America.

Peacekeeping is not profitable, plain and simple. The U.N. is inept which does not help.

Posted by Dennis | February 7, 2008 4:27 PM