Paper
Renée DiResta, Rachel Kleinfeld, Margot Treadwell
{
"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
In The Media
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.
Published on Jul 18, 2014
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
Rachel Kleinfeld
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.
- How to Engage with New Media: A Strategic Guide for Nonprofit Organizations
- Political Violence in the U.S.Other
Political Violence Researchers, Rachel Kleinfeld, ed., Dalya Berkowitz, ed.
Recent Work
Carnegie India 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 India
- A Halting Turn: India’s Military TransformationCommentary
In any defense establishment, change is an ongoing process. However, despite the best of intentions, existing bureaucracies, bound by habit and years of socialization, have their limits in implementing transformative change.
Anit Mukherjee
- Threading the Needle: India’s Path Forward with ChinaPaper
After the chill in ties between 2020 and 2024 that brought India–China relations to their lowest point in several decades, the two countries have engaged each other afresh. This paper argues that there are predominantly four imperatives guiding India’s approach to China, and they exist in an order of priority.
Saheb Singh Chadha
- Managing Divergence: India’s BRICS Presidency in 2026Article
This piece argues that India’s central challenge is not managing a single flashpoint but resolving the underlying tension between expansion and institutional coherency of the BRICS grouping.
Vrinda Sahai
- India–Africa Strategic Partnership: Challenges, Potential, and Possible PathwaysArticle
A partnership between India, a country of subcontinental size, and Africa, a continent of fifty-four countries, may seem asymmetric until one notes that both are home to nearly the same number of people—1.4 billion. This essay spells out the existing challenges to the partnership, its optimal potential, and the possible pathways to realize it over the next quarter-century.
Rajiv Bhatia
- Emerging From the “Zombie State” of Trade Agreements: The India-EU FTACommentary
The India–EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is shaping up to be one of the most consequential trade negotiations, both economically and strategically. But, what’s in the agreement, what’s missing, and what will determine its success in the years ahead
Vrinda Sahai, Nicolas Köhler-Suzuki
