Tuesday, March 1, 2011 - 4:28 PM
New York University's Center on International Cooperation is out with its annual Review of Global Peace Operations. It's a fantastic update on UN and non-UN peacekeeping operations around the world. It's also full of good data on where peacekeepers operate, who they are, and who funds them. And on those questions, the report provides a vivid reminder that UN peacekeeping is, for the most part, an activity done in Africa (almost 75 percent of UN military personnel are deployed there), by Africans and Asians (combined, more than 70 percent of peacekeepers come from these regions), and funded by the advanced industrialized countries (all told, these countries pay more than 80 percent of peackeeping costs). In a very real sense, the rich world has hired Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Indian, Egyptian, Nigerian and Nepalese troops to grapple with some of the world's most intractable conflicts.
Let's not walk away with the assumption that the rich are doing this out of cowardice or selfishness. European states sending soldiers into post-colonial states* would send a very bad message. From the developing world's perspective they make sure their military's have experience, the U.N covers the costs and it creates good will at the U.N.
I wouldn't accuse them of either necessarily, although I think your interpretation is overly optimistic.
Fair enough.
The Review looks at peacekeeping in its totality through UN, NATO, AU, EU and ad hoc arrangements. While UN peacekeeping typifies the divide between "those that pay" and "those that play [i.e. send troops]" the Review also acknowledges the immense resources (in human, material, and financial terms) given to NATO's ISAF mission in Afghanistan. That mission is a burden largely shouldered by the West. ISAF is also a UN-authorized mission--a fact that shouldn't be glossed over too easily.
(5)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE