Sierra Leone has struck yet another blow against UN peacekeeping. America's UN Ambassador, Richard Holbrooke, naturally argues that Sierra Leone "is not a metaphor for UN peacekeeping." But how could it be otherwise?
Even UN Secretary General Kofi Annan admits that the UN can't do the job. His solution is to strengthen UN operations.
Sierra Leone is one of a long list of African slaughterhouses: Angola, Burundi, Chad, Congo, Ethiopia, Liberia, Mozambique, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan. In none of them has the UN stopped the killing, let alone resolved the underlying conflicts.
Diplomatic pressure, expressions of international outrage, and UN missions have all failed. People die, refugees flee, children starve, societies disintegrate.
The only strategy that has worked is military force. In 1995 Sierra Leone's government was tottering before an offensive of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF). The regime hired the firm Executive Outcomes, made up of South African mercenaries, which routed the RUF.
But one requirement of the political "settlement" pushed by the US was to send Executive Outcomes home. UN peacekeepers proved to be dismal replacements.
In early May, the RUF seized hundreds of Zambian peacekeepers, stealing their equipment, weapons, and even their uniforms. The RUF, with its trademark of chopping off the hands and arms of helpless civilians, began marching on Freetown, the nation's capital, sparking panic.
Then 800 British soldiers arrived to evacuate Westerners. The RUF faded back into the bush.
Indeed, when London announced that its troops' work was done, President Ahmad Tejan Kabbah begged Britain to reconsider. Unable to defend itself and unwilling to trust the UN, his regime tried to throw Sierra Leone back into the arms of its old colonial master.
So Secretary General Annan really isn't talking about the UN when he says that "We have to rethink how we equip troops and prepare them for these operations." He is talking about calling upon real soldiers from real countries using real weapons to fight and kill.
As retired Australian General John Sanderson, who headed UN operations in Cambodia, puts it: "you either go to war or go home." It is a more coherent view, but a much more dubious strategy.
It would entangle nations in potentially endless conflicts with no relevance to their security. It would risk soldiers' lives for interests unrelated to those of their own political communities. And it would turn Western states into new colonial powers.
President Kabbah might want British troops to stay, but Prime Minister Tony Blair would never yield control over the use of those troops. Nor could he ignore the character of the regime which he would be protecting. London would end up ruling the nation.
In practice, writes columnist Charles Krauthammer, "the only serious way to intervene is to occupy. Take over the country, reorder the society, establish new institutions and create the basis for leaving one day." In short, if it's serious enough to have your soldiers kill and be killed, it's serious enough to stick around and finish the job.
In fact, American University professor George Ayittey proposes just such a UN trusteeship for Sierra Leone, "a failed state, its government long ago hijacked by gangsters." He would spend five to 10 years fixing the country.
But such an approach would require sustained military support by the handful of Western states with sizable and effective militaries. Count out the nations reluctant to act for historical reasons (particularly Germany and Japan) or preoccupied with serious security threats (such as South Korea) and you are down to the US, Britain, France, Italy, and maybe India, Turkey, and Russia.
Moreover, Sierra Leone would be only the beginning. Two score countries across Africa and Asia warrant the same treatment. Nor would such trusteeships guarantee success. The former colonies, like Sierra Leone, went through decades of a process that, theoretically at least, should have prepared them for independence. Most of them were freed with a full panoply of economic, legal, and political institutions. No matter.
Five or 10 years of renewed foreign rule would also be insufficient to eliminate the underlying hatreds, passions, and ambitions that have sparked scores of endless and endlessly bloody civil and guerrilla wars. Indeed, memories of prior discrimination and butchery often outlast even lengthy periods of seeming peace and stability -- witness the Balkans.
Yes, we should rethink peacekeeping, as UN Secretary General Annan desires. But the answer is not, as he contends, to create a UN rapid deployment force and prepare it to fight. The solution is to confine UN peacekeeping to where there really is peace to keep. And to leave peacemaking to countries with enough at stake to do the job right.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington and a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry