Mission Reacekeeping - Noble Job

Peace - the word evokes the simplest and most cherished dream of humanity. Peace is, and has always been, the ultimate human aspiration. And yet our history overwhelmingly shows that while we speak incessantly of peace, our actions tell a very different story.

Peace is any easy word to say in any language.Human nature being what it is, peace must inevitably be a relative condition. The essence of life is struggle and competition, and to that extent perfect peace is an almost meaningless abstraction. Struggle and competition are stimulating, but when they degenerate into conflict they are usually both destructive and disruptive.
All human experience seems to show that in international, as in national, affairs, the rule of law is an essential ultimate objective for any society which wishes to survive in reasonable conditions. We may recognize that all humanity - the whole population of this planet - has in many respects become, through the revolutionary force of technological and other changes, a single society. The evolution of, and respect for, international law and international authority may well be decisive in determining whether this global society is going to survive in reasonable conditions.

Peacekeeping, as defined by the United Nations, is "a way to help countries torn by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace." Peacekeepers monitor and observe peace processes in post-conflict areas and assist ex-combatants in implementing the peace agreements they may have signed. Such assistance comes in many forms, including confidence-building measures, power-sharing arrangements, electoral support, strengthening the rule of law, and economic and social development. Accordingly UN peacekeepers (often referred to as Blue Helmets because of their light blue helmets) can include soldiers, civilian police officers, and other civilian personnel.

The Charter of the United Nations gives the UN Security Council the power and responsibility to take collective action to maintain international peace and security. For this reason, the international community usually looks to the Security Council to authorize peacekeeping operations, as all UN Peacekeeping missions must be authorized by the Security Council.

Most of these operations are established and implemented by the United Nations itself with troops serving under UN operational command. In these cases, peace-keepers remain members of their respective armed forces, and do not constitute an independent "UN army," as the UN does not have such a force. In cases where direct UN involvement is not considered appropriate or feasible, the Council authorizes regional organizations such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the Economic Community of West African States, or coalitions of willing countries to undertake peacekeeping or peace-enforcement tasks.

The United Nations is not the only organization to have authorized peacekeeping missions, although some would argue it is the only group legally allowed to do so. Non-UN peacekeeping forces include the NATO mission in Kosovo and the Multinational Force and Observers on the Sinai Peninsula.

Jean-Marie Guéhenno currently serves as the head of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO).

Peace-keeping and Peace-making

Peace-keeping operations are usually required when all the methods adopted by the UN for the peaceful settlement of disputes fail to bring permanent peace. These measures, generally called peace-making efforts, include multilateral diplomatic efforts within the framework of the Security Council, bilateral efforts of Member States, or the good offices of the Secretary General.

All the peace-keeping operations are only temporary measures. They can never alone resolve a conflict. Their tasks are essentially two: to stop or contain hostilities and thus help create conditions in which peace-keeping can prosper; or to supervise the implementation of an interim or final settlement which has been negotiated by the peace-makers. In two instances however, these operations went far beyond the constraints of peace-keeping i.e. in Korea in 1950 and in the Persian Gulf in 1990-91. Ideally, peace-keeping should move in step with peace-making in peaceful resolution of a conflict. But in practice this ideal cannot always be attained.

Peace-keeping operations can be divided into broad categories; observer missions, which consist largely of officers

who are almost invariably unarmed; and peace-keeping forces, which consist of lightly armed infantry units, with the necessary logistic support elements. These categories are not, however, watertight. Observer missions are sometimes reinforced by infantry and/or logistic units, usually for a specific purpose and for a brief period of time. Peace-keeping forces are often assisted in their work by unarmed military observers.

UN peace-keeping troops also called Ôblue helmetsÕ have served throughout the world. In addition to traditional peace-keeping, the functions of UN forces in the post cold war era have been expanded considerably. From 1990 they supervised elections in many parts of the world, including Nicaragua, Eritrea, and Cambodia; encouraged peace negotiations in El Salvador, Angola and Western Sahara; and distributed food in Somalia. Despite the inability of the United Nations to enact fully the collective security measures envisioned in the charter, the importance of UN peace-keeping forces was recognized in 1988, when they were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Peace-keeping in Practice

After studying the theoretical frame-work of the UN peace-keeping operations we must analyze the way these have been practiced so far.

We can observe that the purpose for which the UN was created has at best been partially achieved. Over the years the UN has become a prestigious debating society in which excellent speeches are made and resolutions are passed but not without a selective approach. The veto right gives too much authority to the too few. The Big Five approve only those measures in the Security Council which are not in conflict with their national interests. The UN image is persistently declining because of its poor performance in Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Rwanda and Yemen. On the other hand it has acted too aggressively against Iraq.

The military burden has, usually not been shared out equally. Although some Western governments - Britain and France, in particular - have blameless records, especially when there is a call from Washington, richest and most powerful nations make very insignificant contribution on the ground. Take for instance the case of Bosnia, US had about 650 troops attached to the force in Bosnia and a handful of military observers in Angola and the Western Sahara; Japan had 50 troops in Mozambique; Germany just five civilian policemen in Western Sahara and a brace of military observers in Georgia. The record of the Middle Eastern states is also not impressive. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia helped to pay for Operation Desert Storm in 1991, but they currently fail to contribute a single UN soldier between them.By contrast, the record of some of the poorer nations is impressive. The three nations of the South Asian subcontinent - India, Pakistan and Bangladesh - together account for 20 percent of the UN forces stationed around the world, while Zambia puts more troops at the UNÕs disposal than the US, Germany and Japan combined.

This is not entirely based on altruism. One look at the economies of the developing world shows that many of them are desperate for hard currency, and the $ 998 a month paid - at least in theory - by the UN for each soldier has been attractive.10 This fact has ruthlessly been exploited by some of the richer nations. The West has been under pressure from public opinion to intervene in parts of the world where it has no strategic interest, and has effectively hired mercenaries to do the fighting on its behalf.

Peace-keeping operations most of the times are faced with the problems of insufficient funds. It happens because a majority of the 182 UN members do not pay their dues. The largest defaulter has been the United States. Pointing towards this fact Mr. Boutros Ghali, former Secretary-General UN, stated in 1992, ÔIt is precisely the failure of member states to meet their obligations that has caused the debilitating financial crisis the United Nations faces today.

In 1980, the United Nations owed $ 95.6 million in back dues to its regular budget, the day-to-day operating expenses of the Organization. In 1990, the debt had grown to $ 461.2 million.12 In 1997 United States alone owed $1 billion to the United Nations.

As indicated above, the developed world takes no interest in the UN-conducted peace-keeping operations particularly in the areas where its own interests are not perceived to be directly involved. This is of course a deviation from the fundamental principles of the United Nations. All UN operations, humanitarians or otherwise, may always be participated with human and material resources by nations belonging to different columns, races and culture groups. Those blessed with the task of guiding the destiny of the world ought to lead from the front.

The arrogance of power must give way to the power of reasoning. The world needs an order in which the UN is tailored to undertake peace-keeping operations to serve the cause of peace and not that of individual states. United Nations has still to find a solution to some perennial problems, the leading among them are the problems of Palestine and Kashmir. Newer ones are emerging too, the fresh example is that of Kosovo. These problems are demanding a real role played by the UN for the establishment of an enhanced peace in the areas. UN undoubtedly need more power and a firm determination. It is only that the problems spread in front of her could be redressed on permanent basis. Every nation-state of the world whether small or big, rich or poor need to cooperate with UN in her efforts in maintaining peace and tranquillity.

No matter how much the UN is criticized for its so far performance, no sane person can fully deny the great services of this Organization for the betterment of humankind. This can well be judged by the people of Africa whom were helped by the UN when they were starving under the open sky with no hope of life. In numerous other natural disasters UN remained as the only hope.

ndian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF), was the Indian military contingent performing a peacekeeping operation in Sri Lanka between 1987 and 1990. It was formed under the mandate of the peace accord signed between India and Sri Lanka in 1987 that was designed to end the conflict between Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and Sri Lankan armed forces.Its task was to enforce the terms of the accord, and maintain peace. and was inducted into Sri Lanka on the request of the then President of Sri Lanka, J. R. Jayewardene under the terms of the Indo-Sri Lanka accord.

The force was initially not expected to be involved in any significant combat by the Indian High Command. However, within a few months, the IPKF became embroiled in battle with the LTTE to enforce peace. In the two years it was in northern Sri Lanka, the IPKF launched a number of combat operations aimed at destroying the LTTE-led insurgency. It was also accused during this time of having committed a number of Human Rights violations— mainly by the LTTE. but also by some neutral organisations.

The IPKF began withdrawing from Sri Lanka in 1989, following the election of the V P Singh Government in India, and on the request of the newly elected Sri Lankan president, Ranasinghe Premadasa.The last IPKF contingents left Sri Lanka in March 1990.