Renée DiResta, Rachel Kleinfeld
{
"authors": [
"Rachel Kleinfeld"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "democracy",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "DCG",
"programs": [
"Democracy, Conflict, and Governance"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [],
"topics": [
"Security",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}Source: Getty
Lack of Training and Money Imperil U.N. Missions More Than Does Liability
If military leaders lack control over their troops' role in U.N. missions, but can be held legally responsible for their troops’ actions, then troop contributions from richer states with better courts may be less forthcoming.
Source: New York Times
We like to ask the United Nations to do the impossible – then kick it when it fails. The Security Council gives U.N. troops missions that the five permanent members don’t want, and then it deploys them slowly, without adequate arms, hampered by rules of engagement that impede success.
Nineteen years ago, this cynical system led to a massacre. This week, it fell to a Dutch judge to provide accountability. His careful ruling held Dutch peacekeepers accountable for the 300 deaths attributable to their failure of leadership.
The verdict is apt but its side effects may further harm U.N. mission effectiveness.If military leaders lack control over their troops' role in U.N. missions, but can be held legally responsible for their troops’ actions, then troop contributions from richer states with better courts may be less forthcoming.
Meanwhile, U.N. missions from poorer countries that earn money from them will continue. This is unlikely to increase efficacy: many of these countries send troops so poorly trained and equipped that the United Nations must supply boots as well as arms.
In a world in which tens of thousands of U.N. blue helmets are deployed right now, this is no way to create stability.
The world needs the United Nations. Like democracy, it is the worst system save for all the others. If we are going to keep asking the U.N. to serve in places where the U.S. doesn’t want to go, we should help it do a better job.
First, the Security Council must provide rules of engagement that allow force, which is increasingly needed.
Second, we need a standing fund for peacekeeping. Right now, the United Nations must go begging for funds and troops only after the Security Council authorizes a mission. Months pass and war zones worsen before they can be deployed.
Finally, the United Nations increasingly needs forces that are trained, vetted and can work together, especially since so many come from poor countries. Creating training academies whose graduates are first in line for deployment would help. And it would be a good use of some of the billions President Obama just authorized for foreign military training, in his bid to keep the United States out of future wars.
This article was originally published in the New York Times Room for Debate.
About the Author
Senior Fellow, Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program
Rachel Kleinfeld is a senior fellow in Carnegie’s Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program, where she focuses on issues of rule of law, security, and governance in democracies experiencing polarization, violence, and other governance problems.
- For Expertise to Matter, Nonpartisan Institutions Need New Communications StrategiesPaper
- What Future for International Democracy Support?Paper
Thomas Carothers, Rachel Kleinfeld, Richard Youngs
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Europe
- Taking the Pulse: Is France’s New Nuclear Doctrine Ambitious Enough?Commentary
French President Emmanuel Macron has unveiled his country’s new nuclear doctrine. Are the changes he has made enough to reassure France’s European partners in the current geopolitical context?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- The Iran War’s Dangerous Fallout for EuropeCommentary
The drone strike on the British air base in Akrotiri brings Europe’s proximity to the conflict in Iran into sharp relief. In the fog of war, old tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean risk being reignited, and regional stakeholders must avoid escalation.
Marc Pierini
- Resetting Cyber Relations with the United StatesArticle
For years, the United States anchored global cyber diplomacy. As Washington rethinks its leadership role, the launch of the UN’s Cyber Global Mechanism may test how allies adjust their engagement.
Patryk Pawlak, Chris Painter
- Global Instability Makes Europe More Attractive, Not LessCommentary
Europe isn’t as weak in the new geopolitics of power as many would believe. But to leverage its assets and claim a sphere of influence, Brussels must stop undercutting itself.
Dimitar Bechev
- Europe on Iran: Gone with the WindCommentary
Europe’s reaction to the war in Iran has been disunited and meek, a far cry from its previously leading role in diplomacy with Tehran. To avoid being condemned to the sidelines while escalation continues, Brussels needs to stand up for international law.
Pierre Vimont