India should look at the company it keeps in these missions.
PM Manmohan Singh’s address at the Passing Out Parade of the Platinum Jubilee Course of the Indian Military Academy in Dehradun last December was full of bromides, homilies and inane platitudes. Amidst the rhetoric-laden cacophony, the PM also touched upon the Indian Army’s contribution to UN Peacekeeping Operations (UNPKO).
By strengthening the foundations of our democracy, and defending democracy at home and abroad, through UN Peacekeeping, you have set an example for nations and societies across the world. [PIB]
The commonly held belief is that India’ international standing and world image have been enhanced substantially due to its contribution to UNPKO in nether parts of the world. Indian defence circles do not tire of pointing out that besides enhancing the international prestige, participation in UNPKO provides valuable training and experience to India’s armed forces. A cursory glance on the statistics at the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping website is revelatory of the effective Indian contribution to various peacekeeping operations of the UN. Amidst the claptrap of world peace and enhanced Indian sphere of influence, it is a worrisome sign that nearly half the contribution of troops in UNPKO [as on 30 November 2007] is from India and its South Asian neighbours, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal.
| Country |
Military Observers |
Troops |
| India |
89 |
8776 |
| Pakistan |
128 |
9679 |
| Bangladesh |
105 |
8805 |
| Nepal |
43 |
3052 |
In comparison, the contribution from the developed western nations barely registers a presence on the muster rolls of the UN peacekeeping forces. The data contraindicates a nation’s troop contribution to the UNPKO as an index of influence or power in today’s geopolitics.
| Country |
Military Observers |
Troops |
| United States |
17 |
8 |
| United Kingdom |
18 |
285 |
| France |
28 |
1774 |
| Australia |
24 |
9 |
| Sweden |
33 |
3 |
| New Zealand |
14 |
1 |
Some might argue that the minuscule contribution by western nations can be justified considering their population and the size of their militaries. However, the argument is specious when China’s contribution to the UNPKO is considered, which is only 69 Military observers and 1574 troops. If one is known by the company one keeps, it is not a very august company for India in the UNPKO.
It is indeed lucrative for the militaries from developing countries to serve with the UN as the UN allowances are often far higher than the salary soldiers get at home in these countries. Margarita Mathiopoulos, chief executive of the European Advisory Group, called these forces “the usual suspects of UN peacekeeping, the impoverished third-world armies who only deploy their soldiers for their per diem.” Currently the UN reimburses the governments around $1,100 per peacekeeper per month, which covers their pay, clothing, gear, equipment and personal weaponry. The national governments decide the pay of the peacekeepers based on the national salary scale. This often means that the country can make a profit in US dollars by deploying vast numbers of troops.
Though true for many other developing countries, India’s current economic strength (unlike Bangladesh or Nepal) seems to render this contribution in US dollars redundant to a larger national rationale for participating in the UNPKO. In fact, the Indian Parliament was informed in May 2007 that approximately $ 228.99 million is due from the UN towards reimbursements for deployment on various missions.
India’s engagement with UNPKO reflects its deep desire to influence world affairs and to be counted as a strategic power in the community of nations. India prides itself as a glorious 5,000-year old civilization, but its dream to be a powerful modern, nation-state still remains largely unfulfilled. Over the decades, Indian establishment has continued to regard international peacekeeping as a legitimate tool for achieving the global power status. Peacekeeping, with no internal political dissonance, permits India to reconcile the potential tension between the commitment to international idealism and the requirements of national security.
But while it creates more opportunity for India to boost its international image, it also increases risks to its troops of falling prey to hostile groups like the rebels in Sierra Leone. More Indian peacekeepers have lost their lives than any other nationality while serving with the UN. Despite these sacrifices, the public perception in India of these missions has not been very positive as most of the UNPKO have failed to attain the desired modicum of success. India’s failure in Sierra Leone with African Union peacekeepers greatly soured India’s relationship with the West African nations and it took India almost a decade and a very strong economic diplomacy to reestablish those relationships. The charges of corruption and sexual abuse against the UN peacekeepers, including India, which are being investigated by the UN, have also dented India’s image in Africa.
India’s long time aspiration of gaining a permanent seat in the UN Security Council also runs parallel to its desire for playing a decisive role in the formulation of the UN mandate for peacekeeping operations. However in 2006, the African Union opposed Brazil, Germany, India and Japan (G4) in a joint resolution on enlarging the composition of the Security Council, which eventually led to the stalling of the reform process of the UNSC. The myth of India’s soft power and goodwill in Africa accreted by participating in various UNPKO in the continent was negated by this action of the African states. An honest appraisal suggests that UN peacekeeping is not a ticket to global power, as the bulk of the international peacekeeping burden is shouldered by poor Third World countries. In particular, in public, governmental and UN perception around the world, this may have contributed to the bracketing of India with poor third world countries with bloated and antiquated defence forces, instead of a highly professional and modern military force.
It is time the Indian government took a hard look at the Indian contribution to UNPKO. It is repeated ad infinitum that the Indian Army, Navy and the Air Force are suffering from an acute shortage of quality manpower and resources. The prolonged deployment of Army in counter-insurgency operations and internal security duties has also evidently taken its toll. By withdrawing from the UNPKO, the Army will be able to either trim the excess flab or provide greater relief to troopers deployed in hard areas. Furthermore, the UN peacekeeping forces themselves are considered by most observers as a motley crew of impoverished nations with substandard armies that are in it for money. Indian military’s standing suffers in the international arena due to its association with the perceived image of unprofessional mercenaries from other under-developed nations.
Indian military should maintain a token presence in the UNPKO, by deploying military observers and limited number of troops in countries where India has certain geostrategic interests (like Sudan or in the Middle East). It will enhance, and not diminish – as most analysts in the MSM would like us to believe – India’s image as a self-confident modern nation, plunging the right levers of world power a la other major nations. To boot, it will also restore the professional status of the Indian military by dissociating them from other rag-tag armies of third world countries.
Update(16/01) – This year’s Army Day is special for Indian troops as the United Nations Mission Report has heaped lavish praise on them for their role in West Africa, West Asia and Europe. [Sahara]
[If you like this blog, subscribe to the blog feed here.]
A very cheap analysis this. Wealthier nations contribute tons of money to keep the UN going. Besides, considering their histories, presence of soldiers from these countries may not be very welcome in many conflict zones.
With an improving economy, India can also contribute money instead of men. But UN would be better served by India contributing troops for peace keeping operations.
This so-called pride or the lack of it in doing something which even Bangladesh or Nigeria could do is moronic and disgusting. There is no need to ape the west. India should set an example and thats what it is doing atleast in peace keeping operations.
Balaji,
But UN would be better served by India contributing troops for peace keeping operations.
Perhaps. But that’s not for India to be worried about. What matters to us is whether India would be better served by sending troops under the UN flag. And I agree with Pragmatic’s views: there’s no need for us to send troops to faraway conflicts which India has nothing to do with.
As for the UN, perhaps it can hire troops from Blackwater or other private military companies to staff its operations. I’m half joking, but then again, why not?
Balaji,
Wealthier nations contribute tons of money to keep the UN going.
Wealthier nations unfortunately do not contribute money willingly, as agreed upon. Just check the track record of the US.
And I am not the only one asking for more troop contributions from developed nations. All the UN reports, including the much touted Brahmi report, have asked for the same.
India should set an example and thats what it is doing atleast in peace keeping operations.
Towards what larger purpose? What is our national aim? Only for some perfunctory pats on the back. The examples have many aberrations as well, Sierra Leone being the most prominent one. The Indian Genral heading the mission there and the Indian contingent was thrown out after a tiff with the local peacekeepers, and replaced by Pakistanis! Did these African nations support us in the UNSC seat for the G4 proposal?
Nitin, even the contribution by the US nowadays to UNPKO is on contractual basis – generally recently retired guys, not regular troopers. And Blackwater and other agencies have been in serious contention for UNPKO roles for some time now.
>> there’s no need for us to send troops to faraway conflicts which India has nothing to do with.
I disagree. If merely sending troops to a conflict zone can save lives, we should send loads of them. Its not just humanitarian but strategic too. A country which actually puts its soldiers gains lot of goodwill. And doing that under the UN flag, strengthens that organization. Some crackpot regimes may not be grateful, but that is to be expected.
>> All the UN reports, including the much touted Brahmi report, have asked for the same.
and they won’t ask India, which has one of the largest standing armies in the world, if we stop sending troops too?
>> Towards what larger purpose?
merely fulfilling our responsibility as a large nation.
Don’t you think it’ll be plain hypocrisy if we demand to be made a permanent member of SC, run for the secretary general and then refuse to strengthen the same organization?
Besides what does India have to lose by sending troops? Infact it might even the boost the morale of the soldiers to be actually soldiering with good effect instead of being constantly involved in counter insurgency operations of high mortality rates in India.
Balaji:
Its not just humanitarian but strategic too. A country which actually puts its soldiers gains lot of goodwill. And doing that under the UN flag, strengthens that organization. Some crackpot regimes may not be grateful, but that is to be expected.
Countries torn by conflict generally have crackpot regimes. Remember Charles Taylor with whom India negotiated when it landed into trouble in UN missions in West Africa. He is being indicted as a war criminal nowadays. Do we need goodwill of despots and criminals?
Having lost the maximum number of soldiers in such missions in Africa, no, I repeat NO, African country supported us for the UNSC seat.
and they won’t ask India, which has one of the largest standing armies in the world, if we stop sending troops too?
Respond the way the other major nations respond to such calls. Period.
Don’t you think it’ll be plain hypocrisy if we demand to be made a permanent member of SC, run for the secretary general and then refuse to strengthen the same organization?
Realpolitic, anyone! And what is the contribution of other P-5 members? And has our historical contribution aided us so far to strengthen our position in the UN? No. Time to change course.
This is exactly my point. It is a fallacious belief that contributing to UNPKO helps India in any way in the UN or the international arena. It harms us by associating us with other poor, third-world countries and mercenary armies.
Infact it might even the boost the morale of the soldiers to be actually soldiering with good effect instead of being constantly involved in counter insurgency operations of high mortality rates in India.
And who will fight the insurgents in Kashmir and the North-East? And, UN peacekeeping is not actual soldiering. It is a totally different ballgame. You may like to read the UN definition of peacekeeping for more details.
Interesting thought process shared here. But I would like to point out that, First do compare a statistical percentage of the Indian Armed Forces engaged in UNPKO as compared to the ones engaged within the country for CI. Second how many personnel have we lost in UNPKO vis s vis our own internal problems (CI). Strategic Thinking , policies, interests etc do not get generated overnight. It requires a lot of work. If we want a bigger share in the world, we better start making our presence felt not only in big forums but also in smaller corners because a change in world order starts slowly but steadly. Let me assure you that so stated “—- the UN peacekeeping forces themselves are considered by most observers as a motley crew of impoverished nations with substandard armies that are in it for money. Indian military’s standing suffers in the international arena due to its association with the perceived image of unprofessional mercenaries from other under-developed nations” is a total bullshit. There are countries whose troop contribution to UN has greatly helped them in overhauling their entire outlook. I have the experience in serving two of the UNPKO’s and I talking from experience. Indain Armed Froces standing is amongest the best in any UNPKO. In fact I would be enlightened incase somebody can give a indication where we have not performed well. Yes there is a serious need within India to actually cash onto the Goodwill gained out of these UNPKO experience. This I feel has been on of the most serious short comings with our present setup. There is no connection between the peacekeeping operation and so called stratergic thinkers of our country. In fact I would like somebody to actually define them for me . Who are they and where do they sit. How do they get their inputs? etc etc. Let me tell you each of the field commander who has everbeen in the UNPKO has a story to tell. Hence the so quoted Sierra leaone issue I wish it is understood in totality to realise what went wrong, who went wrong and why it went wrong. Secondly if we were to base our decisions of not participating in any international forum because of failures (whose so evers it may be) then I think it is a very defeatist attitude. If we have to think like a one of the Major world players then we better start paying attention to every small input. Let me high light this by a simple example. The present UNPKO in Democractic Republic of Congo has maximum troop contribution by India. we have been there for last five years. We have a fantastically large amount of people (Armed forces men) who understand the country’s problem. They have developed a very healthy mutual respect with in the country. But how has this translated. Zilch. Look at Chinese, a small presence but it is already translating into getting lot many contracts towards infrastructure development, maybe mining rights. So where did they get it right and we went wrong. Is it the fault of peacekeepers or the so called Strategic thinkers who feel we must only hob nob with Developed nations and shun away from the developing Nations because it tarnishes our image. I feel the issue is to learn from every quater, which we do not want to. We have a toatl mistrust amongest civil servants and the Defence. Umteen examples are available. It is time we understand each other and support each other. may be thats what we have abonded and that is what we have to regain.
Mahesh,
Thanks for the insight.
Pragmatic,
>> Having lost the maximum number of soldiers in such missions in Africa, no, I repeat NO, African country supported us for the UNSC seat.
This is plain blackmail. Simply bcos we send troops we cannot expect countries to back us on an issue which has two legitimate sides.
>> And who will fight the insurgents in Kashmir and the North-East?
what?! do you think all the troops fight insurgency all the time? they’ll go crazy if they do.
It was gr8 to hit upon such a thought provoking site.
On the issue of contributoin to UN Peacekeeping – look at it this way. This is a good avenue for our soldiers to roll in some shekels. As it is, our government is unable to pay more.
In addition, please do not underestimate the positive contribution of the Indian Peacekeeper. He is held in high esteem in war zones due to his expertise in dealing with fratricidal situations at home fo rth elast 60 years.
As far as the comparison with the ‘white man’s burden’ is concerned, it is apt no doubt. And that is exactly what Brahimi and Co have tried to focus on.
Mahesh:
Thanks for your comment. Firstly, a clarification – the proposal is not an indictment of the Indian Army’s performance in UNPKO. There is a much larger question here. BTW, a division worth of troops in the UNPKO plus their training, turnover, preparation time — easily 1.25 divisions at any given time. That should be a significant number for a military under pressure.
The fundamental question is — Towards what larger national aim are these troops being deployed there? We have been doing it since Congo in the 1960′s and what have we as a nation got in return. You can blame the bureaucracy and the politicians or powers that be, but the facts remains unaltered. The statistics clearly show the kind of countries sending their troops to UNPKO. Is India and the Indian Army in the same league?
There are countries whose troop contribution to UN has greatly helped them in overhauling their entire outlook.
Can we have their names please? The “motley crew of impoverished armies” comment has been made by senior western diplomats and UN staff. None other than the Chairman of UNSC experts committee personally made a similar statement to me. It is not about patting our own back or receiving pats from others. It is about realpolitik and seeing tangible gains.
Look at Chinese, a small presence but it is already translating into getting lot many contracts towards infrastructure development, maybe mining rights.
It is much more then the UNPKO, it is the power that a country has. Even where the Chinese don’t have any troops, they are doing better. They can disburse soft loans and help rogue regimes [like Sudan] in the UNSC.
In the end, it is not about blaming bureaucrats and politicians for not leveraging the UNPKO operations. It is looking at them in the right perspective — Are these missions, as they are currently structured, add to India’s power or prestige? I fear not.
As far as the GOI initiatives in Africa are concerned, you may like to take a look at a Chatham House paper titled “India and West Africa – A burgeoning relationship”. You would be pleasantly surprised.
Mahesh:
Fair call from a soldier’s POV. You get better exposure and more respect (not to forget the substantial money in USD that Nikhil has alluded to and is blowing up on good wine!) in UNPKO. But it still doesn’t add up to anything substantial to the nation for the effort and the resources committed.
I beg to differ on the usefulness of “The tool” itself. That is my whole point. It is time to discard the UNPKO rather than trying to leverage them. The way the power games are played in today’s world, UNPKO is on the fringes with no real levers to international power. It might be an unpalatable truth, but it is a fact that we must digest.
The Indian army may be admired by other armies in the mission. But for an outside observer, they shall be bracketed alongside Bangladesh, Nepal, Ghana and Kenya. No offence meant to these armies, but I’m sure we aren’t in the same league.
Nikhil,
Jokes apart, they have consistently sent their troops in all theaters even in Africa.
Unfortunately, I haven’t seen any facts to back that statement so far.
I didn’t discount the positive spin-offs of engagement in UNPKO for the Indian military – fraternising with the enemy et al. The issue in my post was at a much broader level and although the arguments are interesting, there is nothing substantial here to change my POV.
Cheers mate, for the wine and Haldiram namkeen combo! I envy you
you know what, this analysis is going nowhere. people with notions of “false pride” and “whats in it for me” will find fault with the very purpose and motive behind UN and UNPKOs.
there are better places to put this “pride” mirror. what do we get by associating with the “organization of slave countries and their masters” aka commonwealth. or the “world is not flat” kinda anachronistic movement like NAM.
Balaji:
UN is only a shade better than NAM and the Commonwealth. That too if you are in the P-5 at the UNSC to control the thing. I like and admire (but can’t share) your idealism about the UN and UNPKO, but realities (as I experienced them) dictate otherwise.
BTW, where was this analysis supposed to “go”? It is very much here
Well, I agree there are problems with UN. But it still remains the only organization (of this genre) with the widest possible reach. India should be at the forefront of reforming the UN, not joining the likes of Bush to render the organization irrelevant. In my opinion, India contributing to UNPKO operations is an excellent example to emulate for other countries who might be skeptical.
Balaji:
Can India reform the UN? Remember the fate of the G-4 proposal. Unfortunately, the real world doesn’t work that way. Thus it is time for India to become a powerful nation and do whatever it takes to be one or act like one.
Few Submissions:
First I went through the paper Pragmatic quoted—- It deals with primarily Indian Interest In Western Africa- ivory Coast. Incidentally the there is UNPKO mission there also but minimum Indan presence. maximum Indian presence as of today is in DRC and may be next would be Sudan. So how about now following it up with some diplomatic and economic follow up in these countries.
Second—facts and Fig on UN troop conributing counties is available on UN DPKO site. It would be interesting go thru.
Third— This argument of no European / US troop contribution to Blue helmets has been a many a bar room discussions in our times. Most of them concluded on one note only — they do not have the capability to adapt and serve under the any other flag for a larger flag. may be I would ask some of you to refer the issues raked up when Gen Nambiar was Force Commander in Kosovo (if I remember correctly).
And Nikhil lets face it Haldiram’s goes well with any Drink- thats our contribution to the World. Incidentally I have official offered this on Air India Flights with the drinks. So Cheers
Mahesh:
I referred that paper to clear the misconception that there is no coherent Indian government policy on foreign countries. And West Africa also includes Sierra Leone and Liberia, besides Ivory Coast. You might like to seek more inputs on Indian policy in DRC and Sudan.
The troop contribution link is there on my blog post in the first paragraph. I have sourced my inputs from there.
If these western nations can serve under a NATO flag, why not under UNPKO? Is it due to their inability to work under UN conditions (as you allude to) or a deliberate choice made by their governments? A better argument would be to say that they contribute the money and the developing countries contribute the troops. The mode of contribution is different and I would like to see India’s contribution being upgraded from the developing to the developed one.
I again repeat that the issue should not be held against the Indian military. The question is of larger national interest.
Pragmatic,
Let’s hear your suggestions – a clear cut picture/ approach to achieve a “Larger National Interest”?
Give your view of absolute, unambiguous ‘steps’ rather than writing an essay?
Playing Ostrich wont help India – whom are we showing dissent to by withdrawing from UN Missions? These big nations? Do they care?
Does India benefit from withdrawing?
Why can’t the GoI be more assertive and show our regional power status without resorting to steps which show us in poor light?
Our Govt can’t handle Nandigram……..at times one feels the criticism meted out to India is fair!
Get REAL sir.Shoddy and third rate treatment by the developed world won’t stop because we stopped our troops from joining UN ‘PEACEKEEPING’ missions.
Indian Armed Forces currently take these missions as a reward for having done a good job back home – if you stop this, they’ll soon forget and seek satisfaction in some other form – like a ‘peace posting at Pune or something similar. But would it help the Larger National Interest? Who has the balls in our bureaucracy to stand up for our Larger national Interest??
Face it – we are not Israel. We just don’t have it in our political will.
Have a nice day and a good weekend sir.
Could not agree with you more on the National Interest. We too would like to be part of this contribution. But sadly everytime somebody points a finger it appears that the Indian Armed forces are not a part of this National interest. Why do we get that feeling- inspite of serving it with our sweat and blood. We were brought up in services to follow the old adage of “our is not to question why but to do and die”. The So called western Developed nations do not foster this thinking. In fact on informal levels whenever we have interacted with them they are all praises of our troops (may be our soldiers are soldiers in true sense). But if we feel we have to go their way then I think there is a major shift required within Armed forces and may be a even more Major one out side armed forces to accept them in a new avtaar.
Nikhil:
That’s quite a task. They would have to move me to South lock and find another job for dear old Pranabda then.
My argument is not about showing dissent to anyone. It is about our national aims and ways to achieve them. UNPKO is not one of the ways.
Fair enough, these missions are great for the average Indian soldier. Why stop here then? Then lets increase our contribution to UNPKO further and like Bangladesh and Nepal, give every uniformed guy two to three missions. Maybe the much touted golden handshake for military officers can also work out that way!
We don’t have political will. The bureaucrats are useless. The nation is in pits. These same guys took the decisions for the nuclear bomb or for the economic liberalisation policies. Come on Sir, don’t parrot the cynical opinions strewn about on our uneducated media. Like all other institutions (including the armed forces), the other organs of the government have their pluses and minuses. Let’s not dismiss them outrightly.
Indian contribution to UNPKO would be the first casualty if the Indian establishment displayed more political will. Israel is not even a full member of the UN and cares two hoots for the UN and UNPKO. Ask the guys serving in UNPKO there. So much for Israel and the UN.
Mahesh:
Fair call. It is not “us vs. them”. We are all in it together.
reading ur comments it was absolutely delighting your input have made me know abt the indian peace keeping missions more than i expected .
pragmatic ur view is respectable but isnt every thing abt our culture and nature more abt humanity rather than gain.. yes i agree that in this competitive world we need to think about our nations gains as well yet if we stop sending troops to these poor african nations who will??/and there is nothing wrong in being branded along with nations like kenya or nepal .India is a country of self respect saviour of the down trodden we dont have to show offf in front of the west, a west that is selfish and vain
“not the right question to answer. The real question should be — Why should Indian government send its troops to such missions, where India has no interests, in the first place? 31 ”
Think of the common jawan. Not sending indian units on UN outings will deprive them of their ‘foreign outing’. That is good enough reason as any. if you can do a poll on the jawans – they will tell you its in their interest.
i have felt much like the author, but finally understood that after all our civilization ( read ancient india ) is the most under achieving one. No wonder along with our ‘pain in the under carriage brothers’ from bangladesh and pak we are serving in UN,smuggling weapons, getting caught in the act..and proving the fact that we are retards..what else can you expect we are mediocre after all.