Not merely how India should do UN peacekeeping.
Conventional wisdom is often long on convention and short on wisdom. ~Warren Buffett
While the IAF Chief releases a coffee-table book so gushingly titled Indian Aviation Contingent: An indelible odyssey in UN peace keeping — chronicling the activities of the IAF contingent with the UN mission in Congo — the statement of some significance comes from the Indian Special Representative to the United Nations. In a statement to the UN Security Council last week [pdf of full text here], he said –
The operating environment for Peacekeeping has changed. The conventional wisdom that Peacekeepers must be drawn from the ranks of the military is an idea whose time is past. India believes that the future of Peacekeeping, and at least a part of Peacebuilding, lies in the development of Police and Rule of Law capacities in UN missions.
These lines would not be music to many ears in the three defence services, who have placed a premium on selecting and sending officers and men for such missions — all to earn a few more bucks. It doesn’t seem to trouble many in the services that such military contributions — along side other unprofessional militaries from third-world countries of Africa and Asia — neither add to the stature of Indian armed forces nor do they serve India’s national interest in any significant way.
It is is no way an indictment of the performance of the Indian armed forces in UN peacekeeping missions. While over the years, there have been question marks raised over the conduct of certain Indian peacekeepers, that is to divert the attention from the real issue at hand. The issue is not whether the stuff has been done well; the issue is whether this stuff was worth doing in the first place.
To understand this argument, one ought to revisit the fable of the lost ring being searched under the lamp post by a person when it was lost in the dark bushes a few yards away. “Because it’s dark back there and I can’t see a thing so I figured I’d look where there is light”, was the reply from the man searching under the light. Thus while the exercise was futile, at least the man felt he was doing something — an honest attempt by one with intent and energy but not much by way of foresight or vision. Exactly the kind of situation the Indian armed forces find themselves in these UN peacekeeping missions. And Indian politicians have also put their foot in the mouth while voicing their unconsidered opinion on the subject.
In fact, even the Indian Special Representative at the UN doesn’t address the real question. It is merely not about police force replacing the armed forces in such UN missions. It is actually about India moving away from the archaic idioms — of non-alignment and ideals of world peace under the UN flag — to a more realist position focused on securing India’s national interest. Being the largest (or nearly the largest) military contributor to UN peacekeeping missions is certainly not one of the ways of securing that interest.
Ignorance shining through!
Are you even vaguely aware how GOI gets reimbursed from the UN for the personnel it sends? Not just manpower, but every piece of equipment gets re-imbursed. And I think you’d not be aware but the max amount comes from BMPs/APCs and heavy weapons.
So UN wants policemen with lathis?? Gimme a break Sir.
@anil:
Just check the links in the above blogpost and other posts under the UN category to know of the details of dry lease and wet lease for Indian military equipment. Also you’d know as to how much money the UN still owes to India for the UNPKO commitments. That’d perhaps clear your ignorance on a few such matters.
That aside, the issue is why we should do it? Does it enhance India’s National Interest? No, IMHO.
@pragmatic
The point I wish to highlight is that Police cannot replace Military. They are incapable of operating the equipment required or perform the entire range of tasks mandated.
Most UN missions have a considerable CIVPOL element (besides the Military) which comprises of police officers/contingents. The role and tasking is in tune with their inherent skills. One important task it to train and bring up the local police force.
The UN maynot be doing a sterling job of it, but I doubt if the proposed substitution of Military by Police is the answer. Yes, its logical to beef up CIVPOL and gradually withdraw the Military once the country is stabilised but certainly not at the outset. Certainly not a universal strategy.
Don’t know what inputs our Indian Special Representative had with him. Maybe we can first apply those to India itself and withdraw our army from these internal peace-keeping duties by replacing them with police and setting an example. It will for sure please the international community, particularly Pakistan, if we can do it for J&K.
Well said, Pragmatic. The Indian govt. has been run by a bunch of ignorant and naive people who still do not understand that the UN is a forum for the so-called “UN security council” (the countries with veto power) to play power politics using the resources and the stupidity of the people in the Indian government who hanker to raise India’s profile in the UN without considering the fact that the UN has NEVER helped India secure its own interests since 1947.
The worthless UN referendum on J&K that still hurts us is an example of this. Let us hope that the Indian govt. gets smarter and stops wasting valuable security resources on “international problems” for the sake of prestige. India DOES have more people and interests than the interests of the “highly westernized” political clans that run the country.
To all the naive Indians who hanker to please the erstwhile “international community”, perhaps you all need to look around at the sorry state of India’s internal and external security before trying to please all your highly westernized friends on how “friendly and cooperative” India is. We can leave such bootlicking behaviour to the Pakistanis (we can all see the results such behaviour is getting the pakistanis right now).
India needs to completely withdraw its contribution to the UN and make the UN go the way of the League of Nations. If India is going to be sitting at the table of international power politics, it will be in the organization that replaces the UN, but first the UN has to collapse under the weight of its own contradictions, and sending troops to assist the UN agenda only slows that process of undermining the UN.
Pragmatic
A couple thoughts.
If a peacekeeping force of any size gets in trouble
1. It is domestic political issue for the contributing country, often limiting or dictating the options of the Administration and opposition on unrelated issues .
2. Protecting/rescuing/reinforcing it’s contingent temporarily becomes the NUMBER ONE priorty of the countries foreign policy to expense of just about everything else.
This is one of the reasons that major powers do not (and should not) make major contributions. If a medium sized country in Africa goes balistic because its’ trrops are in trouble it is one thing. If a country with a large competent armed force and nuclear weapons goes ballistic it is something entirely different. (The US Peacekeeping in Lebanon in 1984 being a case in point, luckly we had a President who knew when to cut his losses.)
May I submit that India is becoming to to important in international affairs to risk this.
@Hank:
Thanks. So, if you are a great power or on your way to becoming one, you shouldn’t send your soldiers to do some peacekeeping under the UN flag. Interesting, but I am not that sure that fully agree.
dear pragmatic,
the cue should be taken from chinese.They hav virtually taken over whole of africa and their troops are there as peacekeepers where ever their business interests are substantial. The idea of sending troops or eqipment as a source of revenue is deplorable.the idea should be the projection of nation in an international forum as a developed nation.however the idea of reimbursements which keep on piling up on paper often cloud thinking of policy makers.The best bet will be to go on dry lease.