# USA wants to take charge of all UN peacekeepers?



## The Bread Guy (3 Nov 2006)

Would certainly make it easier for US troops to be under a US commander, no matter what....

 Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

*America fights to take charge of UN peacekeepers around world*
Move could help exit strategy from Iraq
James Bone and Richard Beeston, Times Online (UK), 3 Nov 06 

The United States is lobbying to put an American, possibly a general, in charge of all UN peacekeeping operations in a move that could offer Washington an exit strategy in Iraq. 

The unprecedented US bid for the top UN peacekeeping post would place an American in command of the 95,000 UN peacekeepers in trouble spots from Lebanon to Sudan. 

The American lobbying effort is set to prove hugely controversial. If successful, the change would amount to a radical remaking of the organisation, bringing it closer to its origin in the Second World War as a US-led alliance. 

It is also stirring memories of the disastrous UN peace operation, led by the US, in Somalia in 1993, which ended in chaos and killing on the streets of the capital, Mogadishu. 

Some UN officials also fear that putting an American at the head of peacekeeping potentially could enable the US to use UN operations for covert activities — as it did with the UN weapons inspection teams in the Iraq of Saddam Hussein. 

An American-led UN peacekeeping department could eventually help Washington to replace the US-led coalition in Iraq with a UN-flagged force, diplomats and experts say. 

The US is in a strong position to get the top peacekeeping job — currently held by a Frenchman — because of its decisive support in electing Ban Ki Moon, the South Korean Foreign Minister, as the next UN Secretary-General. 

Mr Ban, who takes over on January 1, is setting up a transition team to select his top officials and is coming under heavy pressure from the big powers to appoint their favourites to key posts. 

The Bush Administration is said to want to name a general to the UN post. “What they want is somebody who knows about peacekeeping and who is a good manager, and they think a general is a good manager,” one UN source said. 

A US official confirmed yesterday that the Bush Administration was seeking the UN’s top peacekeeping post. The US only has 335 peacekeepers and 330 civilians serving with UN missions around the world, with the largest deployment being 239 police officers in Kosovo and 48 police officers in Haiti. 

But Washington pays 26 per cent of the surging UN peacekeeping budget, which could rise from its current $5 billion a year (£2.6 billion) to $6 billion a year. 

“We pay the most,” the US official said. “It almost goes without saying that if the Americans are spending the most money on peacekeeping we should have a say in the management of it. It’s about time.” 

The peacekeeping job is so important to Washington that it is ready to relinquish its traditional control of the UN management department. Christopher Burnham, the American in that post, announced last week that he was leaving for the private sector. 

The US official denied that there was any long-term plan to transfer responsibility for security in Iraq to the UN. “This has nothing to do with Iraq,” he said. “It has much more to do with Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia-Eritrea. These are the ones we are spending so much money on.” 

But some diplomats and experts say that putting an American in charge of the peacekeeping department would ease a possible transition in Iraq. “I am sure that the UN at a very senior level is aware that the Iraq portfolio is heading their way and for once is taking pre-emptive action to be ready for it. It is my understanding that active contingency planning has already been undertaken for the UN to be ready to take a central role in Iraq,” said Toby Dodge, an expert on Iraq at Queen Mary’s College, University of London. The UN backed a contingency planning meeting on a future role in Iraq held in Ottawa by the Canadian Ministry of Foreign Affairs three months ago. Neighbouring Arab countries are urging the UN to play a greater part in the war-torn country. 

UN peacekeepers have replaced multinational forces in other theatres. But a well-placed diplomat said that sending UN peacekeepers to Iraq was unimaginable at the moment because it was “too violent”. 

The rapidly growing department has become the real powerhouse of the UN in recent years — not only managing 18 crises around the world but also nominating UN special envoys. With further operations planned in East Timor and the Sudanese province of Darfur, the UN peacekeeping presence is due to grow to 140,000. 

The American lobbying effort will be resisted by France, which has held the post traditionally. France is fighting hard to keep it, even signalling that it is willing to replace the current incumbent, Jean-Marie Guehenno, with another French candidate. 

Appointing an American as head of peacekeeping would also almost certainly doom Britain’s bid to regain the post of under-secretary-general for political affairs because of the UN rule of “equitable geographic representation”. One official suggested that any Gordon Brown government may be happy to accept the UN’s top humanitarian post — currently held by Norway’s Jan Egeland — instead. 

NATIONS WHO HELP TO KEEP WORLD ORDER

The ten main troop contributors — who provide 67 per cent of the United Nations’ peacekeeping personnel — are Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Jordan, Nepal, Ethiopia, Ghana, Nigeria, Uruguay and South Africa 


Less than 5.8 per cent come from the European Union and 0.5 per cent from the United States 


Currently there are peacekeepers in Sudan, Burundi, the Ivory Coast, Liberia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia and Eritrea, the Western Sahara, Haiti, East Timor, India, Pakistan, Cyprus, Georgia, Kosovo, Golan Heights, Lebanon and other parts of the Middle East 


There have been more than 2,300 fatalities among peacekeepers since the force began in 1948 


The US pays about 26 per cent of the cost for UN peacekeeping missions


----------



## cobbler (3 Nov 2006)

Has somebody whispered to them yet that peacekeeping isn't thier strong suit?


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Nov 2006)

I read this article earlier today and thought that it would be better having a Canadian or Australian general in charge of UN peacekeeping. I just dont see where the US gains anything. We end up providing logistics support for UN operations and we can still do that without running the peacekeeping operation.


----------



## p_imbeault (3 Nov 2006)

"Because we pay the most" I think that is a awful reason to claim they should have total control. Their financial support should have no bearing on who gets elected to the top slot, isn't it supposed to be like a unanimous decision with all members nations having a say?


----------



## Trinity (3 Nov 2006)

Imagine...

what the countries that HATE the USA.. would say if the USA did become/take charge
of all UN peacekeeping.

Literally.. Team America-  World Police?



edit.. movie title correction


----------



## p_imbeault (3 Nov 2006)

Yea, and they do have that hightech facial reconstruction procedure. Could be very useful!


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Nov 2006)

As the Team America motto says....

We Protect, We Serve, We Care!


----------



## CBH99 (3 Nov 2006)

This is an absolutely horrible idea, in my humble opinion.  

As the article states, if the US does take charge of all UN peacekeeping operations, it would provide the US with an exit strategy out of Iraq.  The US could use the extra troops available through the UN to slowly start pulling its troops out of Iraq.  My question is:  If most of the countries opposed the US invasion in the first place, how the hell do they think that those same countries would contribute peacekeeping forces now that the country is even more dangerous?

Also, what about the gross misuse of the UN's peacekeeping resources?  Do we really want UN peacekeeping resources directed to US interests, even while other situations may continue to go unchecked?  (Sudan is a good example).  I know everything is speculation at this point, but as was stated before me - anybody tell them that peacekeeping isn't their finest skill?


----------



## paracowboy (4 Nov 2006)

wow. Whole lotta conspiracy theories flying around. Jan, Jan, Jan....stop worrying about Marsha. Worry about you.


----------



## paracowboy (4 Nov 2006)

Trin pointed out that not everyone on the boards these days is aware of the Jan Brady Syndrome. This is that bizarre affliction only suffered by a small, but vocal minority of Canadians who live in some pathetic mental state that is completely dominated by a jealous inferiority complex directed at the USA, and to a tiny degree, the UK. For the rest of Canada, it's embarrassing. We don't have to spend out time identifying ourselves as Canadians by saying "We're not Americans". We just go on being Canadian.

That knee-jerk jealousy and self-pity that some Canadians have towards the US makes me want to crush their throat and watch them drown in their own blood with that stunned "What the fuck just happened?" look on their face.
ESPECIALLY service members! After everything the US does for us...how many Canadian lives has American air cover, medical support, logistical support, etc, saved to date? In Afghanistan alone? Whenever we've deployed ANYWHERE, the US has always been there to support us. Or just carry us there in the first damn place! 
No damn country in the world has been as involved in operations around the world in defence of the freedoms that we both hold dear. THAT is why they have an argument about having all peacekeeping (and still fucking hate that word) forces under their control. BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY DOING IT! 
Canada has existed safe and sound under the protective wing of the US for decades. And we continue to snipe and poke at them for doing it. It's disgraceful. 
If you have an objective point to make in this thread, do so. If it's something inane, and reminiscent of the Jan Brady Syndrome, just save it.


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 Nov 2006)

_The Times_ story has a lot of nonsense.  See this guest-post at _Daimnation!_:

_The Times_ (London) raises a terrifying spectre
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/008042.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## 241 (4 Nov 2006)

Imbeault said:
			
		

> "Because we pay the most" I think that is a awful reason to claim they should have total control. Their financial support should have no bearing on who gets elected to the top slot, isn't it supposed to be like a unanimous decision with all members nations having a say?



Correct me if I am wrong but are they not a "few" years over due on there UN membership dues?? And don't they technically owe the most then??


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Nov 2006)

You have information that is outdated. 

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2005/05/21/un_urges_us_congress_not_to_withhold_dues/

From Sept.

Japan Rethinking Plan for Security Council
By NICK WADHAMS, Associated Press Writer Fri Sep 30, 8:31 PM ET 

UNITED NATIONS - Japan has warned Congress that U.S. legislation seeking to withhold United Nations dues could lead Japanese lawmakers to take similar action, possibly resulting in the loss of millions of dollars to the world body, a Japanese diplomat said Friday. 

Deputy Ambassador Toshiro Ozawa said he told Rep. Henry Hyde in a meeting early this month of the possible "unintended consequences" surrounding a bill the Illinois Republican sponsored as a way to force the United Nations to enact a series of reforms. The House of Representatives adopted it June.

"When the U.S. Congress acts, it may impact the thinking of legislators in Japan on this issue because we do know that there is a buildup of frustration on the Japanese side vis-a-vis the United Nations," Ozawa told The Associated Press in an interview.

Japan pays 19.5 percent of the annual U.N. budget of about $2 billion, second only to the United States, which pays about 22 percent.

Ozawa's remarks come as Japan shows increasing signs of displeasure with the U.N. in the weeks since failing to get a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council. It had allied with three other nations — Brazil, Germany and India — in a quest for permanent seats, but they still lack the support they need in the 191-nation General Assembly.

Since the so-called Group of Four put their bid on hold in August, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's government has claimed it is under growing pressure to scale back its dues to the United Nations because people at home no longer believe the country is getting its money's worth.

Dues are determined by a complex formula that is reconsidered every three years in the U.N. budget committee, and Japan could seek to lower its assessment as the United States did in 2000. Then, the United States succeeded in lowering its contribution from 25 percent to 22 percent.

Ozawa said Japan nonetheless wants to work within the U.N. system and rejected the strategy of withholding dues outright.

"As a country we don't like to go into a threatening mode," Ozawa said.

Yet his government has no control over its legislature, putting it in a similar position to the Bush administration. The White House has said as a matter of policy that it opposes withholding dues to the United Nations because doing so could sour relations with other nations and work counter to American interests.

The Bush administration has supported an alternative to Hyde's bill that would give the secretary of state discretion over whether to pay the dues. The earliest such a bill could be enacted would be mid-2006.

There has been no similar move in the Japanese legislature, Ozawa said.

U.N. officials oppose withholding as something that could only delay U.N. reform and alienate other member states.

"We've always felt that withholding dues was not a constructive approach," said Stephane Dujarric, spokesman for Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

Ozawa also said that Japan was reconsidering its approach to reform of the Security Council. While Japan, Brazil, Germany and India remain allied on their proposal for Security Council reform, Tokyo is considering whether to change strategy.

The 35-page document adopted by world leaders at a summit two weeks ago asks the General Assembly to report by the end of the year on progress to reform the Security Council.


----------



## Trinity (4 Nov 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> Trin pointed out that not everyone on the boards these days is aware of the Jan Brady Syndrome.



No.. actually Trinity was embarrassed and pointed out he had NO idea what para was talking about.   :-[ :-[

Trinity is also talking in third person which is creeping himself out. :-\


----------



## Journeyman (4 Nov 2006)

> *U.N. officials oppose withholding [dues] as something that could only delay U.N. reform and alienate other member states*.


 :rofl:
"We're a financially-irresponsible, bloated bureaucracy. If you don't pay the dues we're extorting, it's _your_ fault that we simply can't reform."

Let the US have it. 

If there's a housecleaning that causes the relatives of a bunch of 3rd-world dictators to lose their diplomatic immunity, shopping at Saks, and have to go home to find a job - - bonus points.


----------



## CBH99 (4 Nov 2006)

Some good points have been brought up since my rather hasty reply, especially by you Journeyman.  I suppose there are some pros and cons to allowing the US to take charge of all UN peacekeeping forces.  This issue is going to become even more complex, the more people look at the US witholding dues that were to be forwarded to the UN, as well as engaging UN forces in military conflicts the UN opposed in the first place.

I'm not trying to 'bash the US' here, but I do have two  real concerns if this ever comes to fruitation.  

1.  The flawed concept of the UN.  The UN is supposed to be a 'world body', yet how can it remain so if the US directs its military operations?  (Pro is that the US may offer more organization and support than is currently available to some UN forces currently deployed.)

2.  The misuse of those UN forces.  We have conflicts all over the world that need to be addressed and acted upon, yet many of those conflicts don't involve US interests.  Would the US be responsible enough to keep UN forces dedicated to UN tasks, or would they start to use the UN forces to bolster and support their own forces?

I know it is all just speculation at this point, however those are two of my concerns anyhow.  As I said before though, there could definitely be some big pros to having the US take charge, as well as some cons.  (Would love to analyze this further, but at work - gotta' keep it short.)


----------



## Old Sweat (4 Nov 2006)

I may have missed something, but it seems to me that the proposal is for an American civilian to be employed by the UN to head the peacekeeping office, not to command the UN forces in the field. Any peacekeeping mission would still require authorization by the Security Council. Still, I suppose somebody could find a bogeyman behind every bush. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Nov 2006)

In addition to dues the US pays 25% of the peacekeeping bill.


----------



## Journeyman (4 Nov 2006)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> it seems to me that the proposal is for an American civilian to be employed by the UN to head the peacekeeping office, not to command the UN forces in the field.


That's how I read it too. 

DPKO is actually the _least_ fucked-up ineffective Department within the UN - - but that isn't saying a whole lot. The politics of deploying troops will remain unchanged:

- If there's a strong national interest by a major power, they'll do it themselves so that it's done right. 

- If there's no great interest, the UN will show up - - too late, under-equipped, and over-budget - - to attempt to freeze the situation "while diplomacy works" (hence, no change in Cyprus for 42 years....and counting  : ).

- If it's "too difficult," they'll waffle, wring their hands, and do nothing.....or less than nothing, such as letting the African Union conduct ops in the Sudan.

There will be a difference, but that will be limited strictly to those vocal types who rabidly dislike, and will use any excuse, to bash anything American. Hell, they've already started jumping on this. 

But it truly doesn't matter who is in charge; the most effective reform that could occur within the UN would involve bulldozers.

But that's just my opinion.


----------



## rmacqueen (5 Nov 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> But it truly doesn't matter who is in charge; the most effective reform that could occur within the UN would involve bulldozers.



+1.  The UN is a huge, politicized mess that is dominated by self interest rather than the promotion of peace and stability.

The one problem that I can see with the US being in charge of all peacekeeping is the *perception* that many countries have of US imperialism.  Whether it is true or not (not a debate I am inclined to engage in on this thread), many countries would bock at accepting UN peacekeepers if the US was running it.  There are also a lot of countries where it would be political suicide to tacitly accept a US led peacekeeping force.  The result would be a continuation of hostilities *because* the US was involved.  IMHO it would be better to continue with at least the illusion of impartiality.


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Nov 2006)

When a country is begging for peacekeepers its US troops they want to see. The country in need isnt very picky. Its the dictatorships of the world that get shakey when US troops are mentioned,probably the fear of regime change.


----------



## Old Sweat (5 Nov 2006)

I say again that the proposal is to put an American civilian in charge of the UN peacekeeping department that reports to the Secretary General and controls operations authorized by the Security Council. Read the paragraph about the US being willing to give up its control of another important department. In my opinion, the headline and parts of the story are crafted to place the proposal to try to instill some competence into the peacekeeping process in the worst possible light.

For example, if the US was planning to do this in order to get out of Iraq by replacing its troops with UN forces, how does it get around the right of nations to decide if they are going to contribute troops to a mission or not, and to place caveats on their employment and rules of engagement? In the words of a certain Ottawa talk show host, it is time that we all gave our heads a shake. (Rant generator off)


----------



## CBH99 (5 Nov 2006)

Old Sweat, you bring up some good points.  <Gives my head a shake>


----------



## McG (5 Nov 2006)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> The American lobbying effort is set to prove hugely controversial. If successful, the change would amount to a radical remaking of the organisation, bringing it closer to its origin in the Second World War as a US-led alliance.


How?



			
				milnewstbay said:
			
		

> An American-led UN peacekeeping department could eventually help Washington to replace the US-led coalition in Iraq with a UN-flagged force, diplomats and experts say.


Is this to imply a US general (in a beuroacratic post) could order UN forces into Iraq?  That is absurd.  Deployment of forces would still be a political thing (read Security Council & General Assembly).


----------



## cobbler (5 Nov 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> How?
> 
> Is this to imply a US general (in a beuroacratic post) could order UN forces into Iraq?  That is absurd.  Deployment of forces would still be a political thing (read Security Council & General Assembly).



When did the facts ever get in the way of a good story, let alone a bad one.


----------

