More of the same

The United Nations is on the mat once again. And, writes SRIDHAR KRISHNASWAMI, it's not just a question of being caught napping in Sierra Leone but more about whether past lessons have been learnt.

THE UNITED Nations is on the mat once again. And if there are people in and outside the world body asking searching questions, it is not without good reason. In fact, it can even be argued that for those even marginally familiar with U.N. peace-keeping operations, the questions are not new either. It's not just a question of the U.N. being caught napping in Sierra Leone but more about whether past lessons have been learnt.

The costly peace-keeping operations in Cambodia taught the world body several lessons, some of which will have relevance to Sierra Leone especially as it pertains to what it is that the Blue Helmets hope to achieve in that West African country. What is happening in Sierra Leone now is that the same questions asked in Cambodia about a decade ago are being posed all over again - where is the ``peace'' to ``keep''? And in the absence of peace, what business has the U.N. force in Sierra Leone?

The euphoria over the end of the cold war meant that ``something'' tangible had to come out of it; and the Paris peace accord was one of them in 1991. But when the U.N. started implementing its mandate, it soon became clear that none of the Cambodian factions was too eager to abide by the terms. But each faction was told in blunt terms by its benefactor that the time was up. Hence each signed on to the accord reluctantly.

Perhaps the reasons leading up to the Lome Accord of 1999 as far as Sierra Leone is concerned were different; but the bottomline is that the leader of the Revolutionary United Front, Mr. Foday Sankoh, was told that his time was up. And some even believe that he should be tried as a war criminal for the terror unleashed during the eight-year civil war. But Mr. Sankoh is around today, apparently still calling the shots and worried that the world body may be trying to put a dent into his diamond mining fortunes. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge too held on to the gem mining riches of Pailin in Western Cambodia for as long as they could.

What is coming out of Sierra Leone now is something that has also been heard before - U.N. forces too meekly giving away weapons. Or worse, the U.N. force component is not up to battle expectations. To say that the countries involved in the force structure of the U.N. put together a rag-tag coalition would be unfair; but what will be investigated is the circumstances in which weapons had been surrendered or how such a large contingent of U.N. troops became to be taken hostage.

In Cambodia, for instance, there were allegations that some troops were too obliging to the Khmer Rouge or were giving away weapons just for the asking.

In Sierra Leone and in the context of the U.N. and the United States, the focus is very much going to be on the short run. Given the mess that is unfolding not many are going to be worried about answers to the hypothetical or the esoteric. Clearly the U.N. has a lot of damage-control to do given that its image has taken a bruising.

And major nations such as the U.S. - where politically anything to do with international organisations such as the U.N. gives rise to suspicion or contempt in conservative cirlces - have made it known that there is literally no stomach for inducting ground troops.

The U.N. Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan, keeps talking about a rapid reaction force, but unless this is wholeheartedly endorsed by the major powers, nothing will materialise. Right now Washington is giving soft responses to a rapidly deteriorating situation and that too confined to the logistics point of view.

But the big question that the world body has to answer is whether it is prudent to send in forces without a clearcut idea about what must be achieved.The short term fire-fighting techniques will have to be replaced by some hard decisions: the first being that forces are not committed until there is actual ``peace'' on the ground; and the second that, if hell breaks loose, the U.N. troops have the authority to ``enforce'' the peace.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : A land seared by violence