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 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
- The Impact of U.S. Sanctions and Tariffs on India’s Russian Oil ImportsCommentary
This piece examines India’s response to U.S. sanctions and tariffs, specifically assessing the immediate market consequences, such as alterations in import costs, and the broader strategic implications for India’s energy security and foreign policy orientation.
Vrinda Sahai
- Military Lessons from Operation SindoorArticle
The India-Pakistan conflict that played out between May 6 and May 10, 2025, offers several military lessons. This article presents key takeaways from Operation Sindoor and breaks down how India’s preparations shaped the outcome and what more is needed to strengthen future readiness.
Dinakar Peri
- India and the Sovereignty Principle: The Disaggregation ImperativeBook
This book offers a comprehensive analysis of India's evolving relationship with sovereignty in a complex global order. Moving beyond conventional narratives, it examines how the sovereignty principle shapes India's behavior across four critical domains—from traditional military power to contemporary data governance.
Rudra Chaudhuri, Nabarun Roy
- NISAR Soars While India-U.S. Tariff Tensions SimmerCommentary
On July 30, 2025, the United States announced 25 percent tariffs on Indian goods. While diplomatic tensions simmered on the trade front, a cosmic calm prevailed at the Sriharikota launch range. Officials from NASA and ISRO were preparing to launch an engineering marvel into space—the NASA-ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar (NISAR), marking a significant milestone in the India-U.S. bilateral partnership.
Tejas Bharadwaj
- Hidden Tides: IUU Fishing and Regional Security Dynamics for IndiaArticle
This article examines the scale and impact of Chinese IUU fishing operations globally and identifies the nature of the challenge posed by IUU fishing in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR). It also investigates why existing maritime law and international frameworks have struggled to address this growing threat.
Ajay Kumar, Charukeshi Bhatt