TRY NEW THINKING FOR STRENGTHENED UN PEACEKEEPING

by J.J.C. Voorhoeve

The International Herald Tribune, April 21, 1998

THE HAGUE - Give the United Nations the tools, Kofi Annan rightly argues, " and we will do the job" (IHT Opinion, March 10). The transformation of UN peacekeeping operations is one of the world's most important jobs today. UN peacekeeping can be compared to a roller-coaster ride. From heights of optimism in the early 1990s, the United Nations plummeted in popularity after fumbled operations in Somalia, Rwanda and Bosnia. A dramatic re-evaluation of UN peacekeeping has taken place. And the United Nations has mostly opted out of peaceenforcement operations. Will the United Nations' role as a peacekeeper further dwindle to the point of becoming irrelevant ? Not if member states draw the right conclusions from past experience. The limitations of UN peacekeeping have become clear. * Diplomatic and military prevention of conflicts requires a political courage that is not always easy to muster up.

* The outcome of humanitarian intervention may be mixed. Many people may benefit from the assistance, but the causes of the conflict are not addressed, and a comprehensive political strategy to resolve the conflict is not developed. * "Soft peacekeeping" does not dissuade warmongers from using force, nor from terrorist acts and genocide. So a peace operation must be backed up by formidable military means. * In post-conflict peacebuilding, the United Nations is challenged to create a stable social, economic and political infrastructure. What steps need to be taken to ensure the viability and credibility of multinational peace operations in the future? Three approaches can be discerned: flexible response, rapid reaction and phased withdrawal. Flexible response: Most peacekeepers currently deployed in peace operations, although almost invariably under a UN mandate, do not operate under a UN flag, The best examples of how regional organizations or ad hoe coalitions, better equipped to deal with peace enforcement

operations, may be able to step in where the United Nations cannot or will not act itself are the NATO-led Implementation Force (60,000 toops) and its successor Stabilization Force (35,000) in Bosnia. Regional capacity to deal with peacekeeping and peacebuilding efforts ought to be strengthened. Large-scale military operations must be carried out by a coalition of the willing, led by a major nation or a regional military organization. The United Nations may find its niche in classical tasks such as interpositioning of forces or conflict prevention and postconflict peace-building. Rapid reaction: The past few years have proved the need for the United Nations to be able to react swiftly, for instance when a humanitarian crisis unfolds. The very existence of an effective rapid reaction capability could affect in a positive way the dynamics and scope of certain limited, regional crises,Rapid reaction capacity requires political will (speedy national and international decision-making), military readiness and str

ategic transport. If one of these elements is absent, the others lose relevance. Initiatives like the UN Standby Arrangements System do serve to keep the importance of timely reaction on the political agenda, and may contribute to a more adequate reaction by the UN member states. Phased withdrawal: A robust force mayfirst have to enter, followedby a peacekeeping force. Alternatively, military units may leave altogether once the situation has been stabilized, while aid agencies, military observers and police remain to assist in post-conflict peace-building. Components of present-day peace operations need to be sufficiently available. And serious thought should be given to a UN Standby Police Force. In conclusion, multinational peace operations, despite their current limitations and unpopularity, will remain relevant to help maintain a certain degree of world order. As the international community learns how to cope with the present international security environment, some of the tenets of future peacekeeping c

an already be discerned in the changing nature of today's operations. We face a dilemma. If too many peace operations fail, the United Nations will lose credibility. But if UN members are too cautious in intervening to stop large-scale bloodshed, the organization loses relevance. Defeatism and cynicism are not the way to react, Neither is blind faith. The reaction should be a constant endeavor to reinforce the United Nations.

The writer is minister of defense of the Netherlands. He contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune.