U.N. Peacekeeping: An Empty Mandate


U.N. Peacekeeping: An Empty Mandate

April 20, 1983 32 min read Download Report
Roger A.

(Archived document, may contain errors)

April 20, 1983 U.N. PEACEKEEPING AN EMPTY MANDATE INTRODUCTION Born in 1945 from the devastation of a world war that produced almost 49,000,000 military and civilian deaths, the United Nations was to many a new hope for a more peacegul world. The U.N.

Charter, ratified by the U.S. Senate in July 1945, ambitiously stated the primary aim of the U.N. to be the maintenance of international peace and security. For this purpose, the Ch arter's framers attempted to revive an unsuccessful proposal for the League of Nations by calling upon all members of the United Nations to undertake to make available to the Security Council armed forces, assistance, and facilities I1 Yet the world has h a rdly enjoyed the peace and security that the United Nations and.its advocates promised. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher told the U.N. Second Special Session on Disarmament in June 1982 that, since 1945, the world has witnessed some Ill40 conflict s , fought with conventional weapons, in which up to 10 million people have died Certainly these conflicts are not the fault of the U.N. Still, the U.N. hams done little to prevent them or to restore the peace--despite an expendi ture of at least $3 billion on peacekeeping, of which the United States paid about 1 billion An expert on the U.N Mark Zacher, has identified 93 con flicts between 1946 and 1977 in which the U.N. generally had very little infl~ence.~ The United Nations, Zacher maintains, engaged U.N . Charter, Article' 1 and Article 43.

Address by the Right Honorable Margaret Thatcher before the U.N. Second Special Session on Disarmament, June 23, 1982, U.N. Doc, A/S-l2/PV. 24 June 26, 1982, p. 4 Mark Zacher, International Conflicts and Collective Sec urity, 1946-1977 New York: Praeger, 1979 p. 54 1 2 in even limited debate on only 40 of these conflicts and did not contribute significantly to the resolution of any of them.

Fifty-three of the conflicts were not even debated peacekeeping efforts, in short, amount to a chronicle of an empty Mandate.

Major conflicts that the U.N. either did not address at all or addressed only ineffectively include the Pakistan-Afghanistan conflict (1955 and 1961 the Soviet invasion of Hungary (1956 the war between the Netherlands and Indonesia (1962 the Soviet invasi o n of Czechoslovakia (1968 the Vietnam Wars (1945-1975 the Ethiopia-Somali conflict 1977 Cuban aggression in Ethiopia 1977 to the present thd Zaire-Angola conflict (1977 the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia (1977 to the present the Sino Vietnamese border wa r (1979 the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan 1979 to the present the Iran-Iraq war 1980 to the present the Ecuador-Peru conflict (1980); and the Falkland Islands war 1982 peacekeeping or observer missions, it has fueled the violence by supporting wars of nat i onal liberation and by failing to control international terrori~m.~ In almost all cases, particularly during the last two decades, the U.N. has exacerbated the tensions between nations by llglobalizinglt each crisis as it arises; by opening up sensitive r e gional and international issues to the divisive scrutiny of the General Assembly; and by allowing the Soviet Union, through its veto in the Security Council to exer cise its influence in situations where maintaining tensions works to Soviet advantage The U.N.

In some cases, where the U.N. has actually intervened with The framers of the U.N. Charter proposed a complete system of international peace and security to address the problems arising from the World War and to seek solutions to these conflicts.

As the implementing arms of this system, they envisioned the formation of peacekeeping forces under the control of the Security Council. In twelve of the scores of conflicts since 1945, the U.N. has established peacekeeping or military observer opefations to carry out often unclear and ambiguous functions.

The most recent of these efforts was the 1978 establishment of the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). Its indefinite mandate and its inability to control the terrorist activities of the Palestine Liber ation Organization (PLO) in Southern Lebanon clearly helped rekindle the conflict in June 1982 under French, Italian, or American command now stabilize the region, secure and protect the civilian populace in and around Instead of U.N. peacekeeping forces, multinational units See L. C. Green, "The Legalization of Terrorism in Ymah Alexander et al eds., Terrorism: Theory and Practice (Boulder: Westview Press Inc 1979 pp. 175-197 3 Beirut, and provide time for negotiations toward the eventual withdrawal.of Is raeli, Syrian, and PLO forces. In the Sinai peace is maintained also without U.N. help. A Multinational and Observer Force (MFO) has been established in accord with a proto col to the Camp David Treaty.

Multinational or national forces have been used befor e and after the creation of the United Nations to protect or evacuate nonbelligerents and patrol and maintain cease-fire lines. These have included yika in 1964 to quell a national army uprising; U.S. intervention in Lebanon in 1958 with 10,000 troops dep l oyed simultaneously with two British battalioris; and French and Belgian intervention in Zaire in 1977 to protect nonbelligerents and prevent Communist forces in Angola from gaining control of mineral rich Katanga In at least two instances--the Congo in 1 9 60 and Cyprus in 1964 national forces, if properly employed, could have precluded the later deployment of U.N. forces.5 the deployment of British Royal Marines to Tangan The United Nations clearly deserves failing grades for peacekeeping. The primary rati o nale for establishing a costly United Nations was that it would help build a more peaceful world. After nearly four decades, however, the U.N. peacekeeping record is very poor. This should prompt serious questioning of the U.N.'s raison d'etre THE RECORD O F U.N. PEACEKEEPING The Machinery for U.N Peacekeeping The United Nations Charter gives "primary responsibility and considerable discretion for maintaining international peace and security to the Security Council.6 It is authorized under Chapter VI1 of th e Charter to determine the existence of any threat to peace, breach of peace, or act of aggression, and to make recommendations and decisions as to whether economic or even military sanctions should be employed.' Such a decision of the This would have been the case if the interested Western powers had either provided their forces with more authority at an early stage in the conflict the Belgian forces in the Congo in 1960) or maintained a longer presence in the country (the British forces in Cyprus in 1964 For a criticism of the Belgian intervention in the Congo, see Ernest W. Lefever The Limits of U.N. Intervention in the Third World" (Washington, D.C The Brookings Institution, 1968 p.

13. For an examination of the British involvement in Cyprus, see Anthon y Verrier, International Peacekeeping U.N. Charter, Articles 27 and 39 London: Penguin Books, 1981 pp. 82ff U.N. Charter, Articles 38, 41, 42. 4 Council is binding upon member states under Article

25. At the same time, the five permanent Security Council members can veto any enforcement action. Permanent members never have agreed on the specific forces that were to have been made available to the Security Council under Article 43. The Soviet Union and the United States, in particular, have not been able t o agree on such matters as size and composition of the armed forces to be contri basing of forces when not in action, and the time of their with drawal.8 For this and other reasons, the Security Council has not made binding decisions to use force. The fre q uent threat or use of the Soviet veto over peacekeeping operations has contributed to the collapse of the Charter concept of Security Council acting in concert and supported by a permanent peacekeeping force.g buted by the permanent members, the provision of the bases, the I The concept of a permanent peacekeeping force was first set forth in a 1947 report of the U.N. Military Staffs Committee whose authority was established by Chapter VI1 of the Charter, and whose representatives came from the military ch i efs of staff of the five permanent members of the Security Council. The concept called for forming trained units of all arms and services earmarked for U.N. service and provided with adequate support.1 The West European Allies' reluctance to encourage the independence of their former colonies and their desire to maintain control of disputes arising in those countries, however, worked against translating the notion of a permanent peacekeeping force into reality.ll The concept of U.N. peacekeeping forces "wi t h teeth" was also resisted by the Soviet Union, which had no intention of allowing the U.N. or any other military force to interfere with its existing empire in Asia or the recently gained territory in Eastern Europe--a policy which continues to this day remains in arrears, in fact, for assessed contributions to peace keeping operations in the amount of approximately 119.3 million.

With the rejection of the concept of a permanent force, U.N peacekeeping has been limited to a 'fwatchdogll function--serving with their consent, as a buffer or "plate glass window" between the parties to a dispute.12 It is a referee rather than a peace enforcer Moscow Leland M. Goodrich, The United Nations in a Changing World (New York Columbia University Press, 1974 p. 113.

Jo hn Murphy, The United Nations and the Control of International Violence Totowa, ,New Jersey P.W. Bowett, United Nations Forces Practice (London: Stevens and Son, 1964 pp. 12-18 Allanheld, Osmun and Co., Inc., 1982 p. 21 lo l1 Verrier, op. cit p. xx l2 Mur p hy, op. cit., p. 22 l3 A Legal Study of United Nations William E. Mulligan Military Peacekeeping in the Middle East," The Link Volume 16, No 1 (January-March 1983 p. 1. 5 Among the few exceptions was the Korean War of 1950-1953 At that time, a procedural d evice was adopted to allow General Assembly action if a veto paralyzed the Security Council. This technique is the famous Wniting for Peacell resolution, calling on the "good officestt of the Secretary General to investigate Ifany matter which in his opin i on may threaten the maintenance of international peace and The resolution provided the United Nations a means to exercise tlenforcementlf against Communist aggression in Korea when the Soviet Union vetoed Security Council resolutions on September 6, 12, a n d November 30, 1950 The lack of specific authority in the Security Council has meant that the individual'units of U.N. forces are subject only to the authority of their own governments. The commanders of those forces, on the other hand, are appointed by t he Security Council or Secretary General and are subject to U.N. authority.

This compounds the difficulties when units are ltdirectedtl to carry out action to which their governments or commanders obJect.15 The individual units also reflect national attitu des toward peacekeeping. In many cases, these differ dramatically from a realistic interpretation of resolutions or from the demands of the local situation. Some U.N. soldiers, for instance, in Cyprus after 1964 and in the Congo after 1960,16 impressed wi th the idea that peacekeeping must involve the exercise of peaceful measures surrendered their weapons on demand of local warring factions.

U.N. supervisory and observer missions have been mounted in twelve different crises since 1948 00 The U.N. Truce Sup ervisory Organization (UNTSO established in 1948 to monitor the cease-fire between Israel and neighboring Arab states UNMOGIP) sent to observe lines of armistice between India and Pakistan in 1949 established in 1956 and lasting to 1967, to patrol the Egy p t-Israel border and to interpose itself between forces of both countries 00 The U.N. Observer Group in India-Pakistan 00 The first U.N. Emergency force (UNEF-I l4 In 1947, the Military Staffs Committee Report, referred to earlier, was sought by the Genera l Assembly as the basis for U.N. Operations. Under the terms of the "Uniting for Peace Resolution the U.N. forces in Korea held authority under Chapter VI of the U.N. Charter Pacific Settlement of Disputes and not Chapter VII One observer of U.N. peacekeep i ng operations maintains in the Congo, U.N forces gave up their weapons because of fear or confusion. But there was a common demonstration of lack of training and discipline in both the Congo and Cyprus operations. See: Verrier, op. cit., p. xxiv l5 Verrie r , op. cit., p. xxiii l6 6 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 The U.N. Observer Group in Lebanon (UNOGIL) set up in 1958 for six months to patrol Lebanon's borders The U.N. Organization in the Congo (ONUC) which functioned from 1960 tO 1964 for purposes of interna l pacification The U.N. Yemen Observer Mission lasting fifteen months The U.N. Security force (UNSF) in Dutch West New Guinea (West frian) for internal pacification of that region 1962-1963 The U.N. force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) for the internal pacification o f Cyprus from 1964 to the present The U.N. India/Pakistan Observer Mission (UNIPOM established in 1965 for six months, to supervise a cease-fire in the Ram of Kutchian India-Pakistan border The second U.N. Emergency Force (UNEF-11) established in the Sinai in 1973 to serve as a buffer force between Israel and Egypt established in the Golan Heights in 1974 as a buffer force between Israel and Syria lished in 1978 for internal pacification The U.N. Disengagement and Obse~er Force (UNDOF The U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL estab These operations have fielded almost 370,000 troops and officers from more than 50 U.N. member states. More than 600 soldiers have been killed on duty. The costs of the UNEF-11 UNDOF, and UNIFIL operations alone are estimated at $ 9 73 million of which the U.S. has contributed between 27 and 30 percent The Soviet Union has paid virtually nothing.17 There also have been substantial costs for planning the operational and logistical support for such forces and for moving those forces in to place.

Of the twelve operations, five remain active--the U.N. Truce Supervisory Organization (UNTSO which has worked closely with UNIFIL in Lebanon since 1978; UMOGIP on the India-Pakistan l7 The Soviets do pay a small amount, about 10 to 15 percent of their assessment for the U.N. Disengagement and Observer Force in the Golan Heights (UNDOF).

However, the three Soviet U.N. member states alone have withheld $21.5 million for support of UNDOF and the U.N. Emergency Force in the Sinai UNEF-11) since 1973. 7 border; UNFICYP in Cyprus; UNDOF in the Golan Heights; and UNIFIL lines and improved the prospects for peace in the areas in which they operate? The record is disappointing. In the cases of the Sinai in 1956, the Congo beginning in 1960, Cyprus beginni n g in 1964, and Lebanon in 1978, the opportunities for continued con flict were not reduced by the U.N. In several instances, the poor performance of some U.N. operations led to the reemergence of intensive levels of fighting What have these forces achieve d ? Have they enforced armistice The varied levels of performance of these operations and, in particular, the significant problems that U.N. peacekeeping and observer missions encounter, if not employed at an early stage in conflict or after a settlement be tween the conflicting parties has been achieved, is apparent from analysis of several such operations.

The U.N. Truce Supervisory Organization (UNTSO In Spring 1948, when the United Kingdom issued its Mandate for.Palestine and the State of Israel emerqed, the United Nations created its first international military peacekeeping organization.

The Security Co uncil appointed a Palestine mediator, Count Folke Bernadotte, who formed-MTSO with several.,hundred officer-observers from member states of the Palestine Truce Commission--Belgium France, and the United States. The first round of the Arab-Israeli conflict was fought between May 1948 and March 19

49. During this time, there were two truce periods during which UNTSO encountered the first of many problems that would beset that organization for the next 35 years and ammunition in contravention of the truces, a s did the Arab nations in the area. U.N. military observers from UNTSO were not permitted on the docks or at the airports through which this material flowed. They were therefore unable even to attemp? to enforce the truce provisions During the truce, Isra e l received increased stocks of arms After armistice agreements were concluded in 1949, UNTSO remained in the Middle East for 34 years, providing staff .and support to four other U.N. peacekeeping .operations: UNEF-I and 11, UNDOF, and UNIFIL. During this time, there were five conflicts in the Middle East--in 1956, 1967, 1978-1971, 1973, and 19

82. By the time of the Six Day War of 1967, UNTSO had grown to 140 officer-observers and 400 staff. Equipment included a D03 observation aircraft, a fleet of jeeps a nd other vehicles, and an excellent communications system, which gave UNTSO direct contact with U.N. headquarters in New York.l9 Despite the burgeoning l8 Mulligan, op cit p. 2 l9 Mulligan, op. cit p. 3. a staff and resources, UNTSO had become even less a b le to inspect military units for arms in demilitarized zones or to monitor border violations UNTSO had no authority to prevent or control such violations and could only report any infractions to the U.N headquarters in New York or to other peacekeeping mi s sion comman ders. With only indirect influence over local events, the UNTSO observers have been aptly described by one Middle East correspon dent as mere "adjuncts to persuasion.1120 The U.N. Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP Peace in the Midd l e East is clearly a more difficult goal for the U.N. than was the 'border conflict between India and Pakistan. Today the question of Kashmir, over which the Indians and the Pakistanis have waged two wars, is no longer a pressing matter before the Security Council or the General Assembly although it remains an important issue between the governments of Pakistan and India.

In 1949 UNMOGIP was formed to observe the armistice lines drawn between India and Pakistan at the conclusion of a 14-month border war U.N . observers continued to perform this function through January of 1957, when India annexed Kashmir. Despite U.N. disapproval of this annexation, observers were unable to prevent it UNMOGIP went right on observing the situation through August 1965, when wa r again erupted. By the end of August, U.N. truce observers arranged a cease-fire--perhaps their greatest achievement in sixteen years of observing, but not of much help in the resolution of the conflict. Success was short lived, collapsing in September wh e n Pakistan launched a major offensive across the cease-fire lines At last, both parties agreed to a lasting cease-fire--but only after the U.S Great Britain, and Australia had halted arms shipments, and Communist China threatened Indian border positions i n the Himalayas. UNMOGIP then became the nucleus of yet another U.N. mission, this time named the U.N. India/Pakistan Observer Mission (1965-1966), which assisted in supervision of the new cease-fire. This temporary Observer Mission was soon phased out but UNMOGIP still operates. Anthony Verrier, a British correspon dent and analyst of U.N. peacekeeping efforts, could find no higher compliment to pay UNMOGIP than that "Its continued exist ence shows that when nations fail to settle disputes and seek U.P. he l p, they are usually loth [sic] to dispense with.it.1'21 Throughout the nations involved in history of U.N. peacekeeping conflicts and faced with the operations intervention of 2o Verrier, op. cit 21 Verrier, op. cit p. 13 p. 5 9 the U.N. either during or a zterward have indeed found that U.N peacekeeping operations seem to have a life of their own once they determine that their objectives cannot be reached without resort to the use of force, these nations do not let the presence of U.N. forces stand in thei r way But The U.N. Emergency Force in the Middle East (UNEF-I 1956-1967 UNEF-I is considered the U.N.'s first police and patrolling force It was organized under General Assembly auspices as part of a ''Uniting for Peace" initiative for a cease-fire in the 1 956 Arab-Israeli War, "to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilitiesll and to provide a buffer force along truce lines achieved by consent of the parties concerned and not by direct military action.22 Most scholars who analyze this U.N. effort agre e that the ten years of UNEF-I patrolling the Sinai (1956-1966) brou'ght an era of peace that may be considered one of the U.N.'s greatest contributions to the Middle East.23 Yet this intrepretation requires a strange definition of "contribution.Il For one thing UNEF-I exhibited extraordinary weaknesses in its command structure.

Writes Verrier WF would not be a force whose units would take 'orders from their commander; it would not be a force with a deterrent function. Not only was UNEF in the territory of and of the borders of only one combatant--on whom a cessation of hostilities had, indeed, been imposed by its enemy--but its freedom of movement would be subject to the acts of a 'host' government which had accepted U.N. intervention'to cover the humiliat ion of defeat.24 For another thing, UNEF-I can hardly be credited with contri- buting to peace since it failed to halt that long series of incidents that brought the Middle East two more major wars.

Through the latter part of 1966, UNEF-I watched helplessl y as the Fedayeen, precursors of al-Fatah militant wing of the PLO attacked Israel with increasing intensity and, exasperated by UNEF's inaction, launched reprisal raids.25 Neither the observer machinery nor the peacekeeping capabilities of UNTSO and UNEF - I had provided effective protection against Fedayeen terrorists.26 Israel eventually lost patience 22 Mulligan, op. cit., p. 3 op. cit., pp. 73-74 movement would reoccur in the Congo and in Lebanon 23 See Milligan, op. cit., p. 4; Verrier, op. cit., pp. 1 4-38; Zacher 24 Verrier, op. cit., p.

21. The problem of restrictions on freedom of 25 Shubtai Roseme Israel and the United Nations Changed Perspectives 1945-1976," American Jewish Yearbook, 1978, pp. 25-26.

Brian Urquhart, Under Secretary General of the U.N. for Special Political 26 Affairs,-in HaAarskjold (New York, 1973), quoted in Ibid at note 30. 10 Another problem which beset the UNEF-I force was financing.

Paying for the force was intended to be a matter of adjustment among the U.N Egypt, and the troop-contributing nations.27 This adjustment was never made, and the lack of proper financing became an issue that would haunt the U.N. for the next 27 years.

In May 1967, Egyptian President Nasser demanded that U.N.

Secretary-General U Thant withdraw U NEF forces from the Egyptian Israeli border. Without consulting the General Assembly or the Security Council, Thant complied.28 The Secretary-General's decision was symptomatic of the weakness and limitations of U.N peacekeeping capabilities in the face o f firm local opposition. U Thant himself, in the 1967 report on UNEF-I, wrote An operation such as UNEFls is not an end in itself It is not an enforcement agent and can expect at best to exercise only a very limited degree of authority; an authority, moreo v er, which, unless specifically defined in its mandate and consequent agreements with the host country, automatically and instantly vanishes once it is challenged by the host g~vernment The U.N. Orqanization in the Conqo (ONUC) 1960-1964 The U.N. force in t he Congo at best was a stopgap until the basic structure of central authority and internal security could be established. At worst, the U.N. mission postponed effective assistance from the industrialized countries and complicated the resolution of major i n ternal crises within the country by inter nationalizing what was basically a local crisis.30 effort, the U.N. invested $411.2 million, of which the U.S contributed $170.7 million or 41.5 percent. Financing the other 58.5 percent of the costs was a serious problem for the U.N and the issue of peacekeeping costs remains critical today For this The U.N. Force Cyprus (UNFICYP) 1964 to the Present The U.S. established UNFICYP in 1964 with the consent'of the Government of Cyprus after an unsuccessful U.S. and Br itish attempt to establish an international peacekeeping operation.

The need for an effective peacekeeping force became particularly critical when armed clashes between Greeks and Turks spread throughout the island, following the efforts of Archbishop Waka rios first President of Cyprus, to revise the Cypriot Constitution to reduce the rights of the Turkish minority. British troops might have been able to maintain the peace on the island, leaving the 27 Verrier, op. cit p. 20 28 Verrier, op. cit p 36. Many p articipants in UNEF already felt its 29 Quoted in Verrier, op. cit p. 36. 30 Lefever The Limits of U.N. Intervention p. 11 usefulness was at an end by that point. 11 U.N. to concentrate on other matters, if Great Britain had been willing to provide the se curity force on other than a temporary basis.

During the ten years following the establishment of the U.N mission, UNFICYP had only m ixed success in deterring violence It was, however, clearly incapable of deterring the 1974 Turkish invasion and seizure of the north coast of Cyprus. The conflict reignited because Turkey became convinced that the Turkish Cypriot minority was in grave da nger and.that the United Nations could not protect it.32 UNFICYP, like the U.N. Organization in the Congo, did not have the proper tools for pacification and patroi.

Other problems also prevented UNFICYP from fulfilling its mandate.

Among them 00 The dist inct difference in the initiative and training between various contingents of the U.N. peacekeeping force. For example, Scandi navian commissioned and noncommissioned officers in UNFICYP, unlike those in the British and Canadian contingents, were not expe c ted to act on their own initiative. These officers, when ordered by a British or Canadian commander to act, often referred the order to their home government bands of Greek and Turkish Cypriots to the UNFICYP contingents. The U.N. forces had, great diffic u lty in knowing whom to deployment of U.N. forces on Cyprus. Deployment that was, for example, tactically sound in Nicosia would have been pointless in open country.35 00 The resistance and aggression offered by armed 00 The overwhelming lack of logic in t he initial 31 32 33 34 35 Verrier, op. cit p. 82.

U.N. command, the British forces deterred various communities by a presence that would have forced the warring elements to involve the peacekeepers in direct conflict.

John F. Murphy, The United Nations and.the Control of International Violence Totowa, New Jersey Verrier, op. cit p. 84.

In late 1973 and early 1974, regular Turkish and Greek Army units supported their national counterparts on the island of Cyprus endemic and, unlike the second U.N. Emergenc y Force in the Sinai (WF-11 UNEICYP was unwilling or unable to establish any means to curtail it.

See Verrier, op. cit., p. 85.

Verrier, op. cit p. 86 While they were on Cyprus before coming under Allanheld, Osmun, and Company, Inc 1982 p. 54 Arms smuggl ing was 12 00 00 The drastic reduction in force in UNFICYP, beginning in 1966, to a level far too low for effective operations. In early 1974, UNFICYP numbered less than 3,000, down from around 6,500 a few years before.36 In some instances of local confli ct on the island U.N. forces stood their ground against various Cypriot groups in other instances, however, they withdrew from the conflict area rather than get involved in the fighting itself.

In general, UNFICYP helped keep the level of violence on Cypru s to tolerable levels, except in those instances where either the government of Cyprus or that of Turkey decided to engage in large-scale military assaults. In these instances, the force could not be expected to prevent violence, since it was not equipped by its mandate to serve as an enforcer of the peace, but only operated as a peacekeeping force de.signed to cope with small-scale outbreaks of violence. It depended, in particular on the continuing consent of the Cypriot government for the fulfillment of its mandate.37 The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) (1978-present UNIFIL is the most recent example of the U.N. peacekeeping efforts and of a mission which, like many of its predecessors has failed on at least three levels.

At one level, UN IFIL has failed to fulfill its mandate because that mandate was unclear and poorly defined At another level, UNIFIL has suffered from factors beyond its control--such as the numerous often indistinguishable groups of Muslim and Christian factions and memb e rs of various wings of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Finally, UNIFIL failed because of the uneven performance of its various contingents, many of which wittingly and unwittingly encouraged violence and raised the level of tension among warring fa c tions in the entire region of guerrilla attacks from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. With the defeat of the Arab armies in the October War of 1973 and the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights, Lebanon became a refuge for th e Palestine Liberation Organization, a center for the training of terrorists from around the globe, and, in particular, a jumping-off point for guerrilla attacks into Israel. Israel brought the issue of these attacks Before and after the 1967 war, Israel h a d suffered a variety 36 The U.N. forces dispatched to the'Sinai and Syria in the aftermath of the October 1973 Arab-Israeli War drew initially, and heavily on UNFICYP Even if they had not done so, there is little doubt that financial strin gency would hav e led to a reduction in the latter's numbers Col. R.C. Harvey, The Operational Effectiveness of United Nations Peace keeping Forces, unpublished thesis, Keele University, October 1973-September 1975, quoted in Verrier, op. cit., p 92 at.note 25.

Murphy, op. cit., p. 53 See Lt 37 13 to,the Security Council on several occasions, but its protests were in vain.38 The Soviet veto, as in many previous instances paralyzed the Council.

On March 14, 1978, Israeli forces attacked the PLO terrorists at their base cam ps in Lebanon In response, the Security Council adopted a U.S. sponsored resolution calling on Israel to observe a cease-fire and withdraw from Lebanon At the same time, the Security Council established a peacekeeping force, the U.N.

Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).

Security Council Resolution 425 1978) gave UNIFIL the mandate to (1) confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces 2) restore international peace and security, and (3) assist the Lebanese government to reestablish its au thority in the occupied area. There was an option to renew this six-month mandate for a further period if necessary. This force was initially to number 4,000 troops and remain in Lebanon for six months. The force is still in Lebanon and has grown to 6,300 been difficult and that the U.N. force, for reasons beyond and within its control, has failed to carry out its responsibilities effectively. Evidence shows in some cases that UNIFIL units facilitated the movements and activities of the PLO in southern Leb a non, thus contributing to the de,stabilization that triggered the renewal of hostilities in June.1982 Most analysts generally agree that the UNIFIL assignment has Among the most important factors affecting UNIFIL performance are 1. Uneven ability of UNIFI L to assert necessary authority in pursuinq its mandate.

The UNIFIL performance demonstrates that active deterrence of conflict can only be carried out by trained soldiers determined to assert authority when necessary.39 the Nepalese, Fijians, and French h ave earned the respect of all other forces in the area French and Fijian units, for instance have acted boldly against PLO contingents moving through their areas of control, particularly in 1978 and 19

79. But because not all units exercised such authority, the adversaries,were able to identify soft spots in the UNIFIL line through which they could and did maneuver Among the UNIFIL contingents 2. Lack of familiarity with terrain.

Lack of familiarity with local terrain and inadequate intelli gence were pro blems UNIFIL shared with earlier U.N. missions. 38 See: Yehuda Z. Blum, "The Beirut Raid and the International Double Standard," American Journal of International Law, 64 (1970):73, pp. 98-104. 39 Verrier, op. cit p. 136 14 3. Lack of freedom of movement and inability to control move ments within the area of operation.

Former U.N. Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim failed to deal adequately with the issue of Itfreedom of movementll at the time of the initial UNIFIL mandate. Continuing inability to resolve thi s problem has been at the root of many UNIFIL difficulties 4. The warring factions and religious groups in Lebanon.

The presence of various factions of the PLO, the Syrian armed forces, Maronite Christians and Druse, and Shi'a and Sunni Moslems pose enorm ous proljlems for the Lebanese government and all peacekeeping efforts. There are severe limits to what any outside agency can do in a state torn by tribal, class, and religious conflict.40 5. The Christian Militia in southern Lebanon.

Following the initi al Security Council resolution, the Israelis persisted in their intention to keep the Christian Militia, commanded by Major Salad Haddad, in a buffer zone along the Israeli border with southern Lebanon, resisting the replacement of these forces with UNIFI L . U.N. officials who set up the UNIFIL mission, partkularly Brian Urquhart, Undersecretary-General for Special Political Affairs and Director of all U.N. peacekeeping operations, maintain that the exact role Haddad was.to play was left entirely unclear an d made the UNIFIL mission that much more difficult Major General E. A. Erskine, the Chief of Staff of the U.N.

Truce Supervisory Organization (UNTSO) and the interim Force Commander of UNIFIL established fourteen Observation Posts in the Christian Militia area and patrolled through it. This deterred the Christian Militia from any direct attack on PLO positions north and east of the Litani River.41 It also weakened any excuse the UNIFIL forces might otherwise have had for not better deterring the PLO infilt ration and aggression in these same areas 6. The inability of UNIFIL to control PLO attacks.

The PLO managed to use the U.N. llpeacekeeperstt to create chaos and confusion in Lebanon. Reports issued after the Israeli forces swept through the PLO camps in L ebanon during 1982 have indicated that there was "close and systematic intelligence cooperation between UNIFIL personnel and the PL0,Il and that UNIFIL officers and soldiers had even passed intelligence informa tion to the PLO on a regular basis.42 On one occasion, the PLO 40 Lefever, op. cit p. 17 41 Verrier, op. cit p. 135 42 Joshua Brilliant Eitan Accuses U.N. Troops of Passing Information to the PLO Jerusalem Post, July 29, 1982. 15 was able to induce UNIFIL to supply it with sophisticated communi cati o n equipment.43 As reported by John Laffin, a noted military historian and as confirmed by additional documents made available to The Heritage Foundation, other advantages gained by the PLO through UNIFIL benificence include 00 PLO liaison officers were al l owed to move fully armed with an armed escort through UNIFIL llcontrolledN1 territory 00 Explosives were carried into Israel by individual UNIFIL officers for use by PLO terrorists 00 UNIFIL officers were 'persuaded by the PLO to inform village leaders 24 hours in advance of any impending search for concealed weapons.44 Further evidence uncovered after the 1982 Israeli operations and almost ignored by the Western press) confirmed that the PLO had used refugee camps established by the U.N. Relief and Works A gency in Lebanon to teach fellow terrorists Marxist ideology and such tactics as those used in the devastating attacks on Israelis at the Munich Olympic Games in 1972 and Lod Airport in 1974 to restore "international peace and securityif in Lebanon, remai n ed unfulfilled at the time of last year's Israeli strike into Lebanon and is unfulfilled today unusual test for U.N. peacekeeping operations and that, under enormously difficult circumstances, some contingents of the UNIFIL force did exercise enforcement a uthority against both the PLO bands and Haddad's Christian Militia.45 But UNIFIL did not take those measures that would have made PLO infiltration of the Israeli-Lebanese border more difficult. UNIFIL did not maintain peace and security1# in southern Leba n on,' and for this reason has earned widespread skepticism and distrust--particularly of the Israelis The UNIFIL mandate, which had emphasized a particular need It is true that Lebanon provided an FINANCING U.N. PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS The financial proble ms that have confronted U.N. peacekeep ing efforts have created a large cash deficit.46 Some nations 43 John Laffin, The PLO Connection (London: Corgi Books, 1982), p. 58.

This information has also been corroborated by unpublished documents 44 Ibid p. 59. 45 TheAited Nations has lost 89 UNIFIL troops in Lebanon since 1978, most in confrontation with one of the major combat groups or in attacks on U.N. positions.

Ruth B. Russell, The United Nations and United States Security Policy Washington, D.C The Brook ings.Institution, 1968 p. 333 46 16 I primarily the Soviet Union and its East bloc allies, failed to pay their assessments for the first and second U.N. Emergency Force in the Sinai (UNEF-I in 1956, and UNEF-I1 in 1973 the U.N. Organization in the Congo O NUC in 1960-64), the U.N. Dis engagement and Observer Force in the Sinai (UNDOF in 1974), and the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL in 1978).

The dispute over peacekeeping financing remains unresolved.

In practice, some peacekeeping efforts are financ ed voluntarily as in the case of operations in Cyprus. Others, such as UNEF-I1 and UNDOF, have been created by the Security Council, with main tenance costs included as !'expenses of the Organizationll under Article 17 of the Charter.47 The Soviets and th e ir allies continue to oppose the application of Article 17 to peacekeeping. When they feel their interests are served by so doing, the Soviet Union abstains from voting on peacekeeping issues, rather than exercise its veto power to block them. Even when i t allows peacekeeping forces to be established, however, it pays almost nothing for their support and maintenance.

By December 31, 1982, the deficits for three separate peace For the U.N. forces in the Sinai (1973-79) and in the keeping operations were substantial.

Golan Heights (1974-present 62.2 million, which includes a deficit of $35.9' million in the IISpecial tw o operations, current estimated Soviet arrears are $21.5 million or 35 percent of the entire U.N. deficit for these operations For the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (1978=present 143.7 million, which includes a deficit of $19.5 million still existing in t h e Special Account. Since 1978, the Soviets have withheld approximately $97.8 million for UNIFIL, or 68 percent of the total deficit for this operation support of the United States in assessed and voluntary contribu tions. For the above operations, the Uni t ed States has pai'd the U.N. $279.6 million in assessed contributions and $13.1 million in voluntary contributions. This total of $292 million is about 30 percent of the total cost of these operations For these The U.N. deficits would be much larger if no t for the financial For the 1960 peacekeeping operation in the Congo, the U.N is still $13.1 million in the red, despite $35.9 million realized 47 48 Murphy, op. cit., p. 83.

The Special Account is a bookkeeping device used by the General Assembly to cover the deficit from unpaid assessed contributions allows the General Assembly to keep current peacekeeping operations going, by shifting funds from one account to another bail-out for the Soviet Union, which is the system's largest debtor This device It is b asically a 17 from the sale of U.N. bonds. The total cost of the Congo operation was $411.2 million, of which the U.S. paid $132.3 million in assessed contributions. This figure includes cash contributions and airlift services of $10.3 million for which t h e U.S. did not charge the U.N. Voluntary contributions, however, bring the total figure close to $170.7 million, or 41.5 percent of the total U.N. costs in the Congo. When the Soviet Union refused to contribute any funds to this U.N. operation, the U.S. p u rchased 100 million in U.N. bonds to cover additional Congo.operation costs. At the time of the bond issue, the U.S. accepted the provision that interest and amortization payments be included in the regular budget assessment each year. Thus the U.S. has p aid for the Congo operation four times through additional voluntary contributions, through the purchase of U.N. bonds, and through the payments for interest and amortiza tion on those bonds.

A year's operating expenses for the U.N. Interim Force in through assessed contributions Lebanon is $180 million. In 1982, the U.S. contributed about 54.5 million to UNIFIL or about 32 percent. In the same period, the Soviet Union withheld its total assessed contribution of $21 million or 12 percent. Since 1978, the So v iets have withheld 97.8 million from UNIFIL, representing 58 percent of their total withholdings from the U.N. budget. The U.N. forces in Lebanon continue to provide the Soviet Union with some influence in determining the outcome of current negotiations. A s long as the they can continue to.threaten the existence of the UNIFIL mandate through their veto power in the Security Council, the Soviets will continue to have such influence At some point, perhaps by the end of this decade, the Soviet Union will be i n danger of losing its voting rights under Article 19 of the Charter which provides that a U.N. member may lose his vote in the General Assembly if he falls behind in his assessed contributions to the U.N. by an amount equal to or greater than his previous two years' assessed contributions.

The United States, however, should not wait until then to raise the issue of Soviet delinquency on peacekeeping assessments.

The UNIFIL mandate will have to be considered again this June, by which time the issue of Soviet nonsupport should be raised.

For the U.S the question must be: What does the U.S. gain from its large investment in U.N. peacekeeping?

Is the U.S actually improving the prospects for peace and security in Lebanon and the Middle East by supporting the concept of U.N. peacekeeping?

There are few Americans probably who would not have the U.S. take some risks in the Middle East and provide financial support for the peacekeeping, if this investment genuinely improved prospects for attaining and maintaining peace in the region however, fails to fulfill the U.N. Mandate. In the light of the steps it has already taken to try to stabilize the current situa tion, particularly through the deployment of U.S. Marines in the Multinational Force in Beirut, the U.S. s hould examine closely the future viability of the UNIFIL mission UNIFIL 18 NON-U.N. MULTINATIONAL FORCES IN PEACEKEEPING In August 1982, a Multinational Force, led by the United States, and comprised of troops from the U.S., Italy, and France moved into B e irut to handle the peacekeeping duties traditionally handled by United Nations troops. The U.N. was left on the sidelines for the second time that year.49 At the conclusion of the Camp David Peace Treaty in 1979, the Soviet Union opposed and thereby defea t ed a plan to have the Treaty monitored by U.N forces A separate protocol was subsequently negotiated, and in March 1982, the Multinational Peacekeeping Force and Observers MFO) was created. Nine nations contributed almost 2,100 peace keeping troops to the MFO'force. U.N. peacekeeping forces were not used in Lebanon primarily because these forces had proved ineffective.

The experience of the Multinational Force MNF) in Beirut has demonstrated that peacekeeping in such a complex political environment as that of Lebanon today is by no means an easy task.

The original mandate of the Multinational Force--to assure the safety of departing PLO forces, to assure the safety of the civilian population in the area, and to foster the restoration of the sovereignty and the authority of the Government of Lebanon over the Beirut areaS0--has posed an enormous challenge to the participating Multinational Force countries forces as part of the Multinational Force may be preferable to once more relying on the U.N. peacekeepin g operation which has not thus far contributed to the improvement of.security in that Yet using U.S. region.

CONCLUSION The U.N. peacekeeping forces have not been able to deter aggression and conflicts or maintain peace between factions groups, or nations. Crossing the "thin blue line of U.N. peace keeping operations has become all too common In his recent report on the work of the U.N., Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar affirmed that Peacekeeping operations can function properly only with the coop e ration of the parties and on a clearly defined mandate from the Security Council, They are based on 49 Madeleine G. Kalb, "The U.N.'s Embattled Peacekeeper The New York Times Magazine, Sunday, December 19, 1982, p 43 Letter from the Lebanese Deputy Prime M inister of Foreign Affairs to Robert Dillon, U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon, August 18, 1982 19 the assumption that the parties, in accepting a United Nations peacekeeping operation, commit themselves to cooperating with it. This commitment is also required b y the Charter under which all concerned have a clear obligation to abide by the decisions of the Council.

United Nations peacekeeping operations are not equipped authoriZed, or indeed made available, to take part in military activities other than peacekeep ing main strength is the will of the international community which they symbolize. Their weakness comes to light when the political assumptions on which they are based are ignored or overri'den Their This report and the Secretary-General's comments on U.N peacekeeping and peacemaking have been rightfully lauded as one of the first efforts by a Secretary-General to make that organi zation more effective in maintaining international peace and security. Yet a single speech cannot erase thirty-four years of hi s tory. The U.N;'s peacekeeping performance at best has been ineffective. Many U.N. peacekeeping contingents have not main tained a neutral stance in a dispute and might have harmed the already damaged reputation of the U.N. in many areas of the world, part icularly the Middle East.

Fifteen years ago, Ernest Lefever, writing on U.N. peacekeep ing operations in the Congo, concluded: "In the management of crises between states that threaten the peace, the U.N. hstrumen tality can be effectively employed only at an early stage or after a settlement between the conflicting parties has been achieved.lIs2 Today, U.N. forces may be ineffective even in these situations, particularly since as the recent conflicts in Lebanon and the Falkland Islands demonstrated, a llsettlementln between confli c ting parties may be very difficult to attain, and if attained, may not last. If U.N. peacekeeping forces are inserted after the settlement between parties is achieved, they may be caught in a situation where they have no enforcement author#ity if the sett l ement is broken and conflict renewed. This happened in the Congo in 1964, in the Sinai in 1967, and in Lebanon in 1978 In an interview with The Heritage Foundation in January 1983;Brian Urquhart, Under Secretary-General of the U.N. for Special Political A f fairs, maintained that one of the advantages of the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon is that its contingents take necessary risks and that they accept the casualties incurred in taking such risks. Urquhart also noted, however, that it was necessary for U.N. f orces to stay above the conflict and to 51 Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organization, General Assembly, Thirty-Seventh Session, September 7, 1982, Doc. a/37/1, p. 7 52 Lefever, op. cit p. 14 20 enforce certain "rules11 by passive mea sures only. The Under Secretary-General admits, as do several of his colleagues at U.N.

Headquarters in Manhattan, that even the record of attempted enforcement has been less than consistent with the needs of peacekeeping, particularly in Lebanon, and that some contingents will not take the Ifnecessary risks.lI Since the Security Council is not likely in the forseeable future to authorize enforcement measures against a state under Chapter VI1 of the U.N. Charter, U.N. peacekeeping forces will not have the authority to enforce the peace and deter aggression.

For this reason, the United States should be wary of supporting future'U.N. peacekeeping operations that do not carry such authority.

And Americans should be wary of crediting the U.N. with llsuccessesll in peacekeeping that the U.N. has failed to achieve.

Roger A. Brooks Policy Analyst


Roger A.