Reform of Peace Operations

Reform of United Nations Peacekeeping Operations Would Serve Important US National Security Interests 
In her first opportunity to chair the Security Council last April, Ambassador Nikki Haley made UN Peacekeeping operations a top priority on the Council’s agenda. Her objective was to consider “how the UN’s most powerful tool to promote international peace and security” can be made more “effective” and “efficient.” She set forth four reform priorities: Support for political solutions, host country cooperation, realistic and achievable mandates, and an exit strategy. 

The UN Secretary General shares a commitment to UN Reform. Secretary General António
Guterres has stressed “accountability and transparency,” better integration and coordination among UN entities, upgrading the governing structures and Member State oversight, and delegating operational authority to the field. Ambassador Haley has pledged full support for the Secretary General’s “bold strategy” to “advance organizational reforms.”

On the issue of sexual exploitation and human rights violations by peacekeepers, the Secretary General has called for a September 18 th Circle of Leadership requesting heads of state or governments to sign a Compact agreeing to certify that citizens who serve the UN “have not committed, or alleged to have committed, criminal offenses, including of a sexual nature, and/or violations of human rights law or international humanitarian law.” The Compact further provides for credible international investigations of both military and civilian personnel charged with such violations.

The 114 th Congress also set forth four conditional reforms: (1) a process to determine the goals, objectives, and benchmarks for timely withdrawal of peacekeeping forces prior to any new or expanded peacekeeping operation; (2) aligning the number and qualifications of staff with the specific needs of each UN agency, mission, and program; (3) a strategy to combat sexual exploitation and abuse; and (4) protection for whistleblowers.

The converging objectives of the US Administration, the Secretary General, and Congress in
seeking reforms in UN Peace Operations presents a timely opportunity to address the challenges facing UN Peacekeepers, to establish conditions for the settlement of disputes through political dialogue, and to enhance the UN’s capability to serve vital US interests. 

Since 2008, the number of conflict situations globally has tripled, and the Security Council has mandated Peacekeeping missions that serve a variety of purposes in differing circumstances. As the largest multi-national military deployment in the world, almost 125,000 UN Peacekeepers serve in 16 conflict zones on four continents. More than 115 countries contribute to these missions. Studies have shown that the presence of Peacekeepers significantly reduces civilian deaths and migration outflows. Examples of UN Peacekeeping successes include the missions in Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Ivory Coast.

There are many conflict situations around the world that the US may wish to help even though they may not directly affect vital US security interests or are too open-ended for direct US involvement. Other situations may involve tensions in which we can play a more effective political role if we do not introduce U.S. forces. There are even situations in which introduction of US forces could trigger special resistance from political or ideological factions.

UN Peacekeeping serves vital US interests by stabilizing and contributing to the resolution of internal or cross-border situations that would otherwise lead to further regional instability, breed terrorist activity, or create humanitarian catastrophe. It keeps US forces safe for use in situations where only they can do the job (fewer than one out of 1,000 UN peacekeepers is US military). It represents a cost-effective alternative (less than $25,000 per man per year for the US, compared to hundreds of thousands of dollars for each deployed US military person). And UN Peacekeeping can help to ensure continued stability in a country or region for years following a more expensive US-led intervention. 

US and UN reform initiatives are timely not only because of the rapid expansion of
Peacekeeping missions, but also because of the challenges and problems facing Peacekeeping operations. These include reports of sexual exploitation and abuse by Peacekeepers, negligence such as the introduction of cholera by Nepalese Peacekeepers in Haiti, and lack of responsiveness such as the failure of Peacekeepers in South Sudan to respond to the calls for help from aid organizations in Juppe when their hotel was attacked by government troops. 

More systemically, Peacekeepers are often inadequately trained and equipped. They lack
adequate engineering, IED detection, medical, intelligence, and air support especially in high risk areas. Security Council mandates can be overly comprehensive and aspirational without setting specific achievable objectives and benchmarks that are matched with adequate resources.  There is often no clear exit strategy or mechanism to determine whether the objectives are being met. Echoes of historical failures in Rwanda and Srebrenica may discourage engagement by some developed countries which have a lot to contribute. Peacekeeping is not the solution to every crisis situation, and should not be the Security Council’s default mechanism. Peacekeeping missions which have achieved their objective or are unable to achieve their objective due to changing circumstances should be phased out. 

The good news is that many great minds have been and continue to be focused on how to make Peacekeeping more efficient and effective. At the UN, the 2000 Brahimi Report on Peace Operations and the 2015 High Level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (HIPPO) continue to provide guidance, as do many independent studies.

In 2017 the US Institute of Peace and UNA-NCA convened two expert roundtable discussions on UN Peacekeeping Reform. Former policy makers and government officials, NGO leaders, researchers, and think tank professionals provided a candid assessment under the Chatham House Rules. Consensus recommendations include more targeted, achievable, and adequately resourced mandates, better preparation and training of peacekeepers, and more effective integration of peacekeeping into broader peace operations. USIP has prepared a concise summary of the findings and recommendations based on the roundtable discussions that warrant careful consideration by parties supporting UN Reform. 

As has been the case historically, US leadership will be critical in achieving these improvements. As the largest contributor to Peacekeeping operations (with an annual assessment of 28.5% of the total annual $8 billon plus per year budget of UN peace operations) and as a permanent member of the Security Council with a veto over new missions and oversight of existing missions, the US has the leverage to bring about significant reforms. With her close working relationship with the Secretary General on UN reform, Ambassador Haley is well- positioned to work for more effective integration of UN programs in support of Peace Operations, implementation of the HIPPO and USIP recommendations, a strong partnership with regional organizations like the African Union and NATO, and promoting sound analysis and strategic planning in support of the initiation and termination of Peacekeeping missions. Working diplomatically with like-minded allies is further essential to ensure progress.
Reform of UN Peace Operations: 

Drawing upon many of the studies and expert analyses, UNA-NCA recommends the following actions as an integral part of any United Nations Peace Operations reform and renewal initiative. The recommendations are grouped around the following seven categories: Achievable and Realistic Mission Mandates, Supporting Political Solutions and Effective Exit Strategies, Readiness and Training, Accountable International/Host Country Partners, Zero Tolerance and Gender Integration, US Leadership in Adapting to Changing Circumstances, and US Funding of Peace Operations.

 Achievable and Realistic Mission Mandates
Security Council Peacekeeping mandates should serve clearly defined political strategies and objectives; set forth specific, concrete, achievable goals; reflect careful planning to provide resources, training, and equipment that will enable mission achievement; and incorporate an exit strategy. (US leadership in crafting mandates should ensure that they also serve US interests in fostering global stability and national security.)  
Mandates should not be a wish-list of worthy tasks but a concise, achievable and adequately resourced mission aimed at the primary task of stabilizing a situation. The force commander should have the flexibility to respond to developments within the resources of the mission. If circumstances change or progress is not being made, the Security Council should amend the mandate or terminate the mission. (Again, US leadership at the Security Council should ensure that missions not only serve US interests but are an efficient use of US taxpayer dollars.)

Supporting Political Solutions and Effective Exit Strategies
Peacekeeping should be part of a full spectrum of Peace Operations that supports a political solution and includes early warning and prevention of conflict situations, conflict resolution, mediation, negotiation and peacemaking, peace agreements, enforcement of peace agreements, and peacebuilding—that is building sustainable inclusive institutions under the rule of law and  transitioning to host country law enforcement and military support for stable governments.(US leadership should help craft Peacekeeping Mandates that are a transitional tool supporting political solutions and regional stability and reducing the threat of terrorism, migration outflows, and other destabilizing factors.) 
To enable the Security Council to meet these objectives, the Secretary General should
implement governance reforms that streamline the UN bureaucracy to integrate peacekeeping with political and peacebuilding programs, incorporate human rights and humanitarian concerns, and place overall responsibility in a senior executive who is solution-focused and can draw upon various UN programs and funds, coordinate with other international and regional organizations, financial institutions, civil society and the private sector, and work closely with strong in-country UN leadership. The UN organizational structure should allocate clear roles for strategic, operational and tactical mission-planning, with a greater role for the Secretariat in strategic planning and more autonomy for leaders on the ground to make operational decision and work closely with non-governmental organizations in the field.
(US leadership is critical in preventing bureaucratic competition and in-fighting and assuring the recruitment and promotion of qualified UN personnel based on merit.)
Peacekeeping serves different purposes. The UN should clarify the kinds of Peacekeeping missions and the purposes they serve. New Peacekeeping missions should fit a category deemed appropriate for Peacekeeping and the mandate should be tailored to achieve specific results deemed appropriate for that category. E.g., civilian protection, protecting the delivery of humanitarian assistance, enforcement of a peace agreements, disarmament, arms free zones, election monitoring, training local police and military, supporting economic reconstruction, etc. The same criteria do not apply to all kinds of Peacekeeping operations. There may be circumstances where there is no imminent practical political solution, but Peacekeeping is a necessary holding action to protect civilians or support humanitarian relief. However, in some circumstances, UN Peacekeeping is not appropriate. It should not be a default mechanism for intractable conflict situations or a substitute for UN leadership in seeking political solutions.
Evaluation of Peacekeeping effectiveness could be enhanced by utilizing independent
analysts, involving the International Security Sector Advisory Team, engaging the UN’s Office of Internal Oversight Services in exit strategy reviews, ensuring whistleblower protection, and establishing an International Organizations office within the Department of State Inspector General’s Office.

Readiness and Training
Peacekeeping missions must have adequate resources, personnel, training, equipment,
medical, engineering, aircraft, intelligence, and field support to achieve the specific objectives of the mission. (The US should contribute the expertise and resources to each Mission that enables the achievement of US national security interests.)
The UN should organize regional training centers working with regional organizations to provide essential training for UN military and police Peacekeepers, ensuring that they are qualified, accountable, and able to undertake tasks required by the mandate, including, for example,  the protection of civilians and the human rights of minorities, and that they are prepared to adhere to rules of engagement that are tailored to the circumstances of each
situation. (The US military can provide effective training models that will enable Peacekeepers to serve US interests more effectively.) 
Peacekeeping missions should include trained mediators and translators who can work with various factions to address threats, resolve conflicts and build inclusive, sustainable governing institutions. (The US can select experienced mediators, including women, to foster regional stability.)  
Working with member states, the UN should establish a rapid response capability that is
fully prepared and ready on short notice to address imminent conflict or emergency situations, which would include military, police, mediation and conflict resolution capacity. (US leadership is critical to develop the capacity to address incipient conflicts that can develop into far more expensive and destabilizing situations that threaten US national security interests.)

Accountable International/Host Country Partners 
To enable the achievement of these objectives, the Secretary General should strongly
encourage the involvement of more developed member states in providing and advising UN
Peace Operations, building upon the September 2015 Leadership Summit in New York in
which pledges were made to provide additional Peacekeepers and equipment support. 
Troop contributing countries (TCCs) should be held accountable for the performance of
Peacekeepers and adherence to transparent zero-tolerances policies on Sexual Exploitation
and Abuse and negligence.  Peacekeeping forces which commit abuses should be immediately terminated, and host countries that do not act expeditiously to prosecute abusers should be barred from Peacekeeping missions until they meet UN standards as determined by an independent authority. Missions should establish independent claims commissions, and TCCs should agree to compensate victims of abuse and negligence. Host countries and TCCs must agree to implement and enforce protocols on civilian protection and human rights. (The US should join the Secretary General’s Circle of Leadership and sign the Compact, urging all member States to do the same.) 

Zero Tolerance and Gender Integration
 Recognizing that sexual abuse by peacekeepers has been widespread, there needs to be a
strict zero tolerance of any sexual abuse in all peacekeeping missions. This needs to be
made clear in all training, hiring practices and personnel materials, with swift punishment
for any perpetrators. UN peacekeepers need practical and tactical training on preventing
and mitigating violence against women. (The US should strongly support the Secretary
General’s initiative to engage heads of states and governments in a top down approach to
ensuring that their citizens serving the United Nations do not engage in human rights
violations of any kind and that independent investigations are undertaken of alleged abuses.)
 To correct the wide disparity between numbers of male and female peacekeepers, specific
efforts need to be made in terms of hiring, outreach and training to ensure that women are
more equally represented as peacekeepers, mediators and negotiators. There is ample
research to show that sustainable peace can only be achieved if women participate in all
aspects of peacekeeping and post-conflict negotiations.

 There needs to be a gendered perspective in the development and maintenance of all
peacekeeping missions to ensure they are meeting the needs of all the people they serve,
who often have differing needs. Importantly, mission mandates should include the
protection of women and girls who are often at risk in conflict settings.

US Leadership in Adapting to Changing Circumstances
Recognizing that the nature of conflicts is changing and that conflict areas are presented
with new challenges and obstacles, the Security Council with the support of the Secretariat
should establish policies that determine when and if Peacekeeping is appropriate where: (1)
 the host government is unwilling or unable to provide support, (2) where there is significant terrorist activity, (3) where there is civil war or genocide and a political solution is not currently achievable, or (4) where the actions of the host government challenges the
impartiality of the Peacekeepers. In such circumstances, if Peacekeepers are to be used, they must be part of a clearly defined strategy. If, for example, mediation with belligerents such as a terrorist organization is not acceptable, then Peacekeepers must be trained and equipped to protect civilians and to prevail in any conflict with belligerents. The rules of engagement should be tailored to the specific circumstances. Where UN Peacekeepers are not appropriate in certain conflict situations, the Security Council should consider engaging regional organizations like the African Union or NATO. 

US Defense Department and NATO funding and technical support for Peacekeeping should be increased by providing additional training, military advisors, engineering, medical, IED detection, and air support. 
The US should consider whether UN institutions like the Military Staff Committee could
play a role in overseeing and upgrading the quality of Peacekeeping operations and whether a reformulated Trusteeship Council in which developing states are represented might play a role in building sustainable institutions in fragile states that will ensure the peace. 
The Security Council should link Peacekeeping and Peacebuilding to the Global Goals for Sustainable Development and encourage better coordination with the World Bank and
regional financial institutions.  

US Funding of UN Peacekeeping Operations 
Congress is currently considering FY 2018 appropriations for UN peacekeeping operations (the CIPA account). The House and Senate have passed a continuing resolution funding the federal government through December 15 th while the House and Senate seeks to reconcile their FY 2018 appropriations bills, each of which has rejected the draconian reductions proposed by the Trump Administration. Both the House and the Senate bills, however, provide for a reduction in peacekeeping funding that would be consistent with the 25% statutory cap on US assessments.
If enacted this funding would fall short of the U.S. actual assessment of 28.43 percent for the second year in a row, adding to U.S. arrears in peacekeeping funding.
The United Nations has taken seriously the concerns of the US administration and Congress about peacekeeping reforms and funding. The Secretary General, who is working closely with Ambassador Haley on UN reforms, is working on a disciplined budget proposal. Some reductions are possible because of the termination of the mission in the Ivory Coast and the phasing down of missions in Liberia and Haiti. Reductions are offset by additional funding need to address the increasing challenges presented by terrorist activity in Mali and the conflict in Syria which affects the Disengagement Observer Force in Syrian Golan Heights. There are concerns that proposed cuts to the missions in the Congo, the Central African Republic, Darfur, and South Sudan are driven more by budget constraints than strategic analysis. There may be merit in diverting some funding to enhance political conflict resolution, but the resources needed to support a political solution should be based on sound analysis not artificial budget targets.
To achieve critical reforms in Peace Operations that would advance US national security
interests, it is important to keep the following factors in mind.
Meeting US funding obligations enhances US influence in seeking reforms and can be
leveraged to achieve proposed reforms.
Adjustments in US Peacekeeping funding obligations should be negotiated through the UN Committee on Contributions and not imposed unilaterally. Unilateral reductions would put the US in arrears, weaken US influence in seeking reforms, invite other nations to reduce their assessments, and diminish the resources necessary to strengthen the effectiveness of Peace Operations. It is not unreasonable to ask other nations, especially members of the Security Council or States like Japan, Germany, India, Nigeria, South Africa, Brazil and Argentina, to increase their contributions to Peacekeeping, but this should be accomplished through negotiations.
Additional resources will be needed to train and equip Peacekeeping operations to
implement the reforms sought by the United States and the UN Secretary General, which
would ensure that Peacekeepers serve US national security interests more efficiently and
US funding of better trained, equipped and accountable UN Peace Operations is a cost-
effective use of US taxpayer dollars, one-eighth the cost of US boots on the ground. Other
nations pay more than 70% of the cost and provide the military and police in harm’s way with the engineering, intelligence, medical and training support that the US, NATO, and other developed nations are best able to provide. 

UNA-NCA believes that the focus of the UN Secretary General, the US Administration and the US Congress on UN reforms, presents a unique opportunity to address constructively the challenges facing UN Peace Operations. By enlisting the support of experienced professionals, the US is well positioned to work with the United Nations to strengthen UN Peace Operations in ways that serve US national security interests in a cost-effective way. History shows that US leadership will be critical to achieving real reforms. Meeting US funding obligations strengthens the US hand in bringing about these changes.

UNA-NCA on Twitter