Perils of peace enforcement

THE NOBLE IDEAL of the United Nations as the international keeper of the peace, under which Indian soldiers have actively participated in operations around the world for half a century and find themselves now in Sierra Leone, received a near fatal blow in Somalia in early 1995. Peace-keeping operations by the world body have since that abhorrent experience come under a cloud of doubt and uncertainty. The harrowing time that the blue berets have been through in the Western African country can only mean further loss of credibility for the world body. Authorised by the Security Council to help enforce a ceasefire agreement between Government and rebel forces, the U.N.'s peace-keeping force has been caught in the crossfire of a civil war that seems suddenly to have revived. A rebel leader who was apparently a favourite with the West and who was allowed to share power under the agreement despite war crimes allegations is holding hundreds of peace-keepers hostage in a daring challenge to the authority of the United Nations. That mercenaries such as Foday Sankoh are allowed to thrive and defy the collective power of the world body is reflective of the degree of impotence to which the U.N has been reduced. It is also a commentary on the failure of the African leadership to assert itself. The abdication by South Africa has seen a rash of bloody clan wars in the southern and central regions of the continent. The continuing fighting in Sierra Leone shows up the inability of Nigeria, now under a flourishing democracy, to make a powerful enough impact in the western and northern regions. Every effort needs to be made by all member-nations to ensure that the operation in Sierra Leone succeeds.

What is at stake is the very future of U.N. peace-keeping, not just the plight of a small African nation. As the Secretary- General, Mr. Kofi Annan, said two years ago while distributing Dag Hammarskjold medals to families of peace-keepers, too much remains to be done, too many innocents are dying, for the U.N. to think of leaving the field in the wake of some setbacks. Till that humiliating, predawn retreat from Mogadishu, capital of Somalia in the Horn of Africa, five years ago, there was every promise that the United Nations would in the long run secure the sanction, capability and resources to mount successful operations to create and keep peace. Namibia and Mozambique, both in Africa, and El Salvador were distinct success stories. Substantial gains for peace had also been ensured at other spots such as Cyprus through enforcement of ceasefires and agreements.

The debacle in Somalia saw a sea change in the fortunes of collective peace-keeping. It came at the end of two years of a brave effort to end clan warfare and mass starvation with the aim of establishing a secure environment for humanitarian relief and the ultimate rehabilitation and reconstruction of the impoverished land. It ended a remarkable period in the immediate post Cold War era when there was an unprecedented rise in demand for U.N. peace-keeping following a surge in ethnic and nationalist conflicts: whereas during the first four decades since 1948 there were just 13 operations, there have been 36 since 1988 when the U.N. effort was recognised with the award of the Nobel Peace Prize. There was even a qualitative change in the operations. Many of the civil conflicts required the U.N. peace- keepers not only to monitor ceasefires but assume a much bigger role: provide humanitarian assistance to the displaced, conduct peace negotiations, protect international aid workers, demobilise, demine and create safe havens. The peace-keepers had metamorphosed into peace- enforcers. As the U.N. emerges from the shadow of the Somalia disaster, countries such as India must ensure that the world body is restored its rightful role.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Desperate killing
Next     : LoC as the border