World News Story

08 January 2009 23:04 BST

Analysis: Congo's pressured peacekeepers

Peacekeeping missions in Africa have always faced difficulties – as the "increasingly desperate" crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo shows.

That's the verdict of UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon, who has called for a ceasefire after the displacing of 250,000 civilians in recent weeks.

The condition of the refugee camps surrounding provincial capital Goma threatening to become a genuine humanitarian disaster.

Health and security concerns are worsening and the fickle results of UN ceasefire pleas leave humanitarian aides cut-off from civilians by the violence. Requests for more peacekeepers have yet to be met.

Sound familiar? It should.

The style of UN peacekeeping since the end of the cold war has seen a shift towards 'complex' missions dealing with intra-nation conflicts rather than inter-nation emergencies.

Despite numerous successes, many of the missions in the last 18 years have often been criticised as ad-hoc messes of little effectiveness.

The 1994 Rwanda genocide is perhaps the most famous example, occurring as a result of the notorious international failure to halt the violence.

Force commander of the mission, Romeo Dallaire, condemned the international community's efforts as being too little and too late, despite sufficient warning and requests for more help.

His peacekeeping forces were given their mission, albeit an unclear one, yet they were not given adequate provisions and authority to carry the tenets of their mandate.

The overstretched peacekeeping force watched in horror as they found their efforts were simply not enough, and thousands of innocent civilians were slaughtered – while back at the UN headquarters decision making was delayed by debate.

What caused this tragic failure?

Much of the problem resides within the logistics of the security council, the body which has been the focus of most UN reform entreaties and plans since its inception.

A world where global dynamics are in constant flux needs active – and legitimate – international bodies, even if the nation-state is still far from an anachronistic concept. UN peacekeeping has witnessed the shortcomings of cooperation just as much, if not more, than any other UN body.

Most people see the need for a body like the UN, but members can be reluctant to sacrifice their own national sovereignty to the organisation. It's a fundamental problem of international relations. And it means that, on the ground, operations are given insufficient power to take control of dire situations.

A lack of cohesion and deficient provisions and authority for the peacekeepers was experienced by peacekeepers dealing with Sierra Leon's civil war of the mid-1990s.

Dealing with the complicated conflicts between the government, Revolutionary United Front (RUF), and various mob-like groups almost proved too much for the troubled UN mission there.

In this instance, fortunately, the mission has now been deemed a success thanks to the 1999 Lome Agreement and the fulfilment of the following mandate.

This can mostly be attributed to the initiative of the British when they stepped up their efforts – breaking the deadlock seen so often at the UN.

Here, Britain's willingness to provide their services gave the operation the diplomatic – and martial – legitimacy it needed: "To all intents and purposes running the day-to-day operation of UN forces," as then UK defence secretary Geoff Hoon put it.

But not everyone has the incentive of colonial guilt to propel them into action.

As a result the problem with peacekeeping seen in Rwanda keep resurfacing: time and time again crises have to reach critical mass before necessary steps are taken. This is nowhere more the case than in DRC.

Recent developments in North Kivu province come as no surprise. Worsening conditions have been widely anticipated but the international community struggled to react.

As in Sudan's Darfur region, where efforts were already overextended, a vastly publicised crisis failed to generate sufficient action. More troops were needed. None were provided.

Despite fervent condemnation of the genocide in the Sudan, the world's powers – among them one of history's greatest military powers – did not provide the equipment needed. Even if it was just six helicopters.

This is why current developments in the DRC are so concerning.

"Many members of the council have expressed their support for strengthening MONUC and augmenting, increasing the number of troops in the MONUC," Alain Le Roy, head of UN peacekeeping, said of the reinforcements issue.

Don't be fooled by his pragmatic optimism: he tempered this statement by admitting he didn't think the decision would be reached quickly, and expecting reinforcement no sooner than two months.

Many have complained about the democratic setback of assessment and deliberation. It is detrimental to efforts trying to solve real-time disasters.

And it's not simply a problem of too few troops. It is a problem of too little authority, too little clarity, too little cooperation.

Darfur's mission, for example, was severely delayed when the Sudanese government rejected any non-African Union peacekeepers.

Even once the peacekeepers are on the ground, as the systems stands today, they lack the political clout needed to actually put an end to the crisis.

So why increase them? A growing number believe the humanitarian need alone make it an imperative.

Notwithstanding the shortcomings of the arrangements or peacekeeping operations in general – and there are many which need urgent reform – the protective aid proffered by peacekeepers is widely regarded as crucial. Endangered refugees in the DRC conflicts (and elsewhere) are desperate for humanitarian aid.

This cannot reach them without more troops. And without aid more will suffer.

The bottom line is peacekeeping forces cannot completely resolve the problems in DRC and Darfur. But they are vital nonetheless. And, for a civilised global society, many feel refusing the relief aid the civilians of these crises so terribly need is barbaric.

Of course, the same thing could be said for allowing the conflicts to go on at all.

Kristin Weiland