Shortchanging Peacekeeping

The kind of military operation with the best track record of actually delivering humanitarian results is traditional, more-or-less consensual blue helmet U.N. peacekeeping operations where the presence of a third-party force can help parties who want to make peace overcome problems of distrust and so forth. Naturally, this kind of work is perpetually slighted by the kind of folks who are only interested in helping foreigners through the mechanism of killing foreigners. Naturally, President Bush decided to underfund these missions because, hey, why help people when you could spend the money on tax cuts for hedge fund managers and an endless war in Iraq instead?

But at the time, the White House line was that the funds would be requested in a future emergency supplemental. Except the supplemental request came out yesterday and the money's not there. Justin Rood explains the whole thing but to make a long story short, Liberia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, and Cote D'Ivoire are all screwed. But a humanitarian policy fiasco that isn't also an opportunity to sing hosannas to unilateral militarism or to try to convince people that if only it weren't for that damn international law we wouldn't have any problems won't get covered at all in the punditocracy.

Photo by Flickr user ctsnow used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

For years, the African Union begged and begged for funding & logistical support for its Darfur operations, while the pundit universe demanded that someone, someone must do something quick.

Posted by El Cid | May 23, 2008 12:24 PM

God it's amazing how fucked up this country's foreign policy is.

Posted by Marshall | May 23, 2008 12:31 PM

So funding the entirety of the UN's military expenditures is an exclusively American responsibilty?

I'm not one of the people who thinks the UN should just shut down, but come on, there has to be some way for the organization to function if the US happens to not cough up the troops and/or money this year. Doesn't Brazil have any troops? The UK? France? China? India? Is Saudi Arabia out of money, too? If US funding really is the only thing holding the organization together then the UN's critics end up looking a little more persuasive.

Posted by Tel | May 23, 2008 12:32 PM

Tel, the US accoutns for just under a quarter of world GDP and is expected to pay just over a quarter of the budget for peacekeeping (partly becuse it is well-off per capita, partly as a Security Council Permanent Member). The troops typically come from Third World powers with organised militaries like India.
Most operations would have problems if you wipe 25-30% of the budget, and it is not clear why everyone else should pick up the tab of the self-proclaimed richest, most dynamic nation in the world.

Posted by John | May 23, 2008 1:02 PM

I don't know, what about the Sierra Leone (?) use of Executive Outcomes. There was less violence then when the UN troops arrived...

Posted by MNPundit | May 23, 2008 1:28 PM

Tel, the countries that tend to send the most troops for peacekeeping are India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Canada, so basically three poor countries and one rich, but small in terms of population, country. Part of what hampers UN operations is that these poor countries providing troops and equipment often don't have the most funding or best equipment.

There was a good Atlantic Monthly article from the summer of 2005 that mentioned a RAND Corporation study that found that UN peacekeeping operations actually have a higher rate of success than American interventions.

Posted by Reality Man | May 23, 2008 2:02 PM

Good post Matt. Wish we saw more on this issue in the MSM. Do you think i they made the blue helmets a little darker, manly shade, they might get more funding?

And I dig the neomelvillian sentences. I would have used an ellipsis at "supplemental...except," making for a strong substantive post, multiple points made and supported, in only six sentences. Cool.

[Seriously, I've read you for years and I dig your style. Though I don't think Melville actually used ellipses.]

Posted by mattt | May 23, 2008 2:53 PM

Good post Matt. Wish we saw more on this issue in the MSM. Do you think i they made the blue helmets a little darker, manly shade, they might get more funding?

And I dig the neomelvillian sentences. I would have used an ellipsis at "supplemental...except," making for a strong substantive post, multiple points made and supported, in only six sentences. Cool.

[Seriously, I've read you for years and I dig your style. Though I don't think Melville actually used ellipses.]

Posted by mattt | May 23, 2008 2:55 PM

I thought that Matt would call these foreign troops "mercenaries". Perhaps that's a term only used for folks in Iraq.

Posted by thomas | May 23, 2008 3:14 PM

The people of Congo have been immeasurably helped by U.N. troops raping them. Would that there were far more. That Matt would mention Congo of all places as one where the wonders of the UN would solve all problems is really ridiculous.

Posted by Sancho | May 23, 2008 3:55 PM

Besides absurdly failing to mention the very real problems with UN peacekeepers (in addition to brothel running and rape, we can add doing absolutely nothing at Srebrenica, etc.), Matt's argument is vacuous. There's no real comparison between American military operations and UN peacekeeping operations. The former can be undertaken during hostilities (though I tend to think it should not), while the latter is mostly a matter of hanging around after peace has been made. That the latter would be more successful is far from surprising. But that doesn't say much about the relative merits of the two in stopping ongoing violence.

Posted by Sancho | May 23, 2008 4:03 PM

thomas, go buy a fucking dictionary.

Posted by thomas it depressingly stupid | May 23, 2008 8:58 PM

You are exactly right about the mentality of killing foreigners to help foreigners. You would think that diplomacy and peace would be a key ingredient to improving the perception of the US in this day and age, but once again UN Peacekeeping is overlooked. In the end, we have to help the UNPKO if we want to help ourselves.

Posted by Jackie | May 27, 2008 10:40 AM