RESEARCH

Challenges to Peacekeeping in the 21st Century

Peacekeeping is one of the cornerstones of the United Nations and was, is

and will be an essential tool for creating lasting peace in war-torn societies.
The international system has changed in many ways since the first
deployment of peacekeepers in 1948; new actors and challenges have
emerged and mandates have evolved. The 21st Century brings enormous
challenges to the international communitys peace and security and
peacekeeping will have to address many of these challenges.

UN Peacekeeping cuts could be a disaster for women and girls

07 July 2017
Due to US pressure, the UN General Assembly has voted to cut $600
million from the UN Peacekeeping budget. The impact on women and girls
must be addressed, or the cuts could cause serious harm, say PhD fellows
Ortrun Merkle and Diego Salama. Women walk past UN peacekeepers at
South Da...
Continue Reading

Peacekeeping Training: Torn Between Complexity and Time

13 March 2017
Stakes are always high in peace operations, so decent training is vital for
the various roles of peacekeepers, the implementation of the mission
mandate and for ensuring operational unity, coordination and coherence. ...
Continue Reading

Operation Peace: Challenges to Peacekeeping in the 21st Century

13 February 2017
Set amid a rapidly changing backdrop, our roundtable discussed the many
systemic challenges to UN peacekeeping. The session was part of the
Future Force conference held in The Hague, 9-10 February 2017, co-
organised by Ortrun Merkle, Diego Salama and Pui-hang Wong of UNU...
Continue Reading

Peacekeeping & Preventing Violent Extremism: Challenges & Opportunities

27 May 2016
The UN Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism, issued in January
2016, called for a comprehensive response to a growing threat. As a result
the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations (UNDPKO), like all other UN
agencies, will be required to consider how it can contribute to a U...
Continue Reading

Arming the Peacekeepers: Dilemmas of New Military Technology

17 May 2016
Gone are the days of peacekeepers patrolling buffer zones between two
conflict parties. Instead, they face ever more complicated large-scale
situations, with diverse and fragmented actors, both state and non-state,
while at the same time receiving more complex multi-layered mandates....
Continue Reading

Robust Peacekeeping: A Necessary Evil?

09 May 2016
The use of force in UN peacekeeping has sparked heated debates in
academic and policy circles alike. After the tragedies in Rwanda and Bosnia
& Herzegovina, the UN Security Council authorised the use of force not only
in self-defence but also in defence of the mandate....
Continue Reading

Beyond UN 70: Sustaining Momentum for Peacekeeping & Peacebuilding

Reform
29 April 2016
The seventieth anniversary of the United Nations made 2015 a watershed
year for international efforts to renew and strengthen two of the world
bodys most high profile sets of activities: peacekeeping and
peacebuilding....
Continue Reading
Is Hybrid Peacekeeping a Model of Success? The Case of UNAMID
18 April 2016
The UNs relationships with regional organisations are quickly becoming a
key aspect of peacekeeping missions. These bodies are playing more
assertive roles both politically and militarily, and the most prominent
recent example is the United Nations African Union Mission in Darfur (...
Continue Reading

Peacekeeping in Cities: Is the UN Prepared?

12 April 2016
We live in an era of dramatic urban growth. Over half of the worlds
population lives in urban areas and in the next 50 years this figure will
increase to two thirds. Within the next 15 years, the majority of countries
currently hosting peacekeeping missions will be largely urban....
Continue Reading
CHALLENGES OF UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS
REVIEWED BY COUNTRIES WITH FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCE

20001109

Representatives of Sierra Leone, Haiti, Rwanda, Ethiopia Among Speakers as

Committee Continues Discussion of Panel Report

Delegates of several countries with experience of hosting United Nations

peacekeeping missions addressed the Fourth Committee (Special Political
and Decolonization) this afternoon as it continued its general exchange of
views on the comprehensive review of peacekeeping operations.

The representative of Sierra Leone said it was not surprising the Panel on
United Nations Peace Operations (the Brahimi Panel) had concluded that the
need for change in peace operations had been rendered even more urgent
by recent events in his country. But under the Panels recommendations,
civilian populations might have to remain under threat for months while the
Secretary-General continued knocking on the doors of potential troop
contributors, and before the Security Council took action to deploy
peacekeepers.

He said that in complex and critical situations, every effort should be made
to complement United Nations peacekeeping operations with rapid reaction
capabilities contributed by individual States or groups of States, in
consultation with the United Nations and with the consent of the host
country. In Sierra Leone, the deployment of British forces had stabilized the
situation. However, that arrangement was not a substitute for United Nations
operations, but it provided a supplementary security blanket.

The representative of Rwanda said the failures of some United Nations

missions had shown similar characteristics, leading to the conclusion that the
Organizations peacekeeping operations required reform. Besides adequate
logistics, clear mandates and trained personnel, peacekeeping required well-
equipped troops with the skills required to protect civilians and humanitarian
personnel as well as themselves.

Haitis representative said that while not minimizing the concerns of Member
States over interventions that did not respect national sovereignty, the
principle of non-interference in internal affairs should not bar operations
meant to stop such horrors as genocide. International consensus along clear
principles must guide such actions.

Fourth Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/SPD/201 22nd Meeting (PM) 9

November 2000

Pointing out that the root causes of conflicts were complex, he said that
peacekeeping action, in itself, could not resolve them. More attention must
be paid to socio-economic conditions, to engendering a culture of peace in
the population and to the promotion of educational programmes to combat
racism and xenophobia.

Ethiopias representative, referring to the United Nations Mission in Ethiopia

and Eritrea, said military observers had been deployed in the two countries
and that plans were under way for the full deployment of up to 4,200 troops.
The Government of Ethiopia would continue to cooperate fully to ensure the
Missions success. To that end, Ethiopia was currently finalizing with the
Secretariat the draft status of forces agreement for its conclusion as soon
as possible.

Also speaking in this afternoons general debate, Polands representative

said that as current chair of the Steering Committee of the Multinational
Standby High-Readiness Brigade, Poland continued to work with other
participants to ensure that the brigade became fully operational. It offered
important advantages in training and coordination between national
contingents which were useful in preparing the troops of participating
countries to play a more effective part in peacekeeping operations.

The representative of Turkey said his country played an increasingly

prominent part in peace-building and peacekeeping efforts, within both the
United Nations and regional missions. It had made training an integral part of
its peacekeeping commitments, with participants from around the world
attending its Peace Training Centre in Ankara.

Israels representative said his country had developed a training programme

in peacekeeping. The Israel Defence Forces would again hold its annual
International Liaison Course at the Israel Defence Forces Liaison and Foreign
Relations Division Headquarters in Tel Aviv next May. The course was
designed to stimulate professional dialogue in military liaison, and would
include lectures, field trips and simulations, as well as dealing with the
theory and practice of military liaison.

Also speaking this afternoon were the representatives of Ghana, Togo,

Mongolia, Jamaica, Colombia, Cyprus, Thailand, Canada, the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, Nepal and Algeria.

The Fourth Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. tomorrow, 10 November, to

conclude its general debate on the comprehensive review of the question of
peacekeeping operations in all its aspects.

Fourth Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/SPD/201 22nd Meeting (PM) 9

November 2000

Committee Work Programme

The Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) met this

afternoon to continue its general debate on the comprehensive review of
peacekeeping operations in all their aspects.

Statements

SYLVESTER ROWE (Sierra Leone) associated his views with those expressed
by Jordan on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. He said that no one
should be surprised by the conclusions of the report of the Panel on Peace
Operations -- the Brahimi report -- that the need for changes in peace
operations had been rendered even more urgent by recent events in his
country. But, under those recommendations, civilian populations under threat
might have to wait for months while the Secretary-General continued
knocking on the doors of potential troop contributors, before the Security
Council took action to deploy United Nations-led forces.

To prevent that, he suggested that whenever possible, in complex and critical

situations, every effort be made to complement United Nations
peacekeeping operations with rapid reaction capabilities contributed by
individual States or groups of States, in consultation with the United Nations
and with the consent of the host country. In Sierra Leone, such a deployment
of United Kingdom troops stabilized the situation. That arrangement was not
a substitute for United Nations-led operations under a unified command, but
it could, in embattled situations, provide a supplementary security blanket.
Presently, as the Secretary-General searched for troops to replace those of
India and Jordan in the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL), any
like effort of the United Kingdom should be endorsed by the international
community.

Apart from that, he said, the Panels recommendations of political support

and a sound peace-building strategy were welcomed. In fact, Sierra Leone
and UNAMSIL contained all the elements of a complex peacekeeping
operation and many of the recommendations could be tested there. Sierra
Leone also welcomed the recommendation that disarmament, demobilization
and reintegration programmes be brought into the assessed budgets of
complex operations for the first phase of an operation, in order to reduce the
likelihood of resumed conflict.

YAW O. OSEI (Ghana) said that the current system under which troop
contributors were required to deploy their contingents under wet lease
arrangements was clearly not feasible. It caused gaps in commitment and
undermined the cohesion of a mission. This was even more pronounced
where a troop contributor was participating in more than one peacekeeping
mission. It was becoming increasingly clear that any solution to the problem
of the commitment gap with regard to personnel and equipment for
peacekeeping operations would require the assumption by all Member States
of their shared responsibility to support United Nations peacekeeping.
Equally crucial to international peacekeeping was the provision of adequate
resources for financing peacekeeping operations. While this was the
responsibility of all Member States, the economically more developed
countries were in a better position to make larger contributions to
peacekeeping operations.

Experience had shown that disarmament, demobilization and reintegration

must be integral parts of the peace process. As the situation in Sierra Leone
had shown, poor management at any phase could endanger that entire
exercise with serious consequences for the peace process and the stability of
the country. Incomplete disarmament and inadequate reintegration could
result in the rearming of the already disarmed, leading to banditry and
armed violence. He particularly endorsed the Special Committees
recommendation that mission planning for those aspects of peacekeeping
should accommodate the special needs of women and children. He also
endorsed the Special Committees proposal that the United Nations should
establish minimum training, equipment and other standards required for
forces to participate in United Nations peacekeeping operations.

Ghana attached importance to gender-sensitivity and its mainstreaming and

so he welcomed the appeal to Member States to put forth women candidates
for participation in all components of field mission, he said. He also
commended the current arrangement under which the Security Council and
troop-contributing countries meet to consult on pertinent issues arising from
force generation or mission operations. This process was helpful in fostering
a common understanding of mandates of missions and their implementation.
He suggested that these consultations not only be held at the request of the
Security Council, but also at the request of troop contributors whenever the
circumstances justified it.

ROLAND KPOTSRA (Togo) said that while the Brahimi Panel had been
established as a result of the tragedies in Rwanda and Srebrenica, the United
Nations had not been in a position to discharge its main responsibility of
maintaining international peace and security. This was because of an
absence of political will, a lack of financial resources and the complexity of
recent conflicts. Deep reflection was required in designing appropriate
peacekeeping operations with the means available to the Organization.

Associating himself with the statement of the Non-Aligned Movement, he

said it was essential that, in establishing peacekeeping missions, the same
attention be given to conflicts in all regions, particularly those in Africa.
Although the Security Council had recently undertaken to seek greater
knowledge of African conflicts through visiting missions and dialogue with
the protagonists, the African continent was not receiving the same attention
as other regions.

In most cases, he said, the deployment of missions in African conflict areas

had not taken place in a reasonable period, but had always been a reaction,
leading to a radicalization of the situation on the ground while a search was
mounted for contributors to a peacekeeping operation. At the same time,
more complex missions were deployed elsewhere to resolve domestic
conflicts.

He said the humiliation of United Nations peacekeepers in Sierra Leone had

demonstrated the need for troops to be able to defend themselves.
Mandates should be adopted only when they had adequate financing and
means. A mission without deterrent credibility could not carry out its
mandate in the field, resulting in situations like Sierra Leone.

He said delays in reimbursing troop- and equipment-contributing countries

posed a serious problem to contributors from African and other developing
countries. Similarly, it was imperative that under-representation of African
and other developing countries in the Department of Peacekeeping
Operations be rectified. The field knowledge of such personnel would be
essential in the preparation and establishment of peacekeeping missions.

J. ENKHSAIKHAN (Mongolia) said he agreed to the need for well-conceived

and clearly defined peacekeeping mandates, without which peacekeeping
operations would not be effective. The question of symbolic presence,
credible military deterrent and war-fighting, as well as many other questions
needed to be addressed. The Brahimi report could be a useful basis for
tackling those and other similar issues of both policy and operation.

The comprehensive nature of the report was demonstrated by the fact that it
included conflict prevention and early warning, peacekeeping doctrine,
mandates and resolutions, personnel and deployment, peace building, as
well as expanding headquarters support. He welcomed the report as a frank
analysis of the prevailing situation and as presenting forthright
recommendations for change. Mongolia was committed to making practical
contributions to peacekeeping operations. To that end, it not only signed a
memorandum of understanding with the United Nations and communicated
to the Department of Peacekeeping Operations its first candidates, but also
took an active part in the recent training exercises held in Kazakhstan for
central Asian countries.

DAVID ZOHAR (Israel) cited his countrys statement to the General Assembly
on 28 September that Israel supported initiatives to modify the scale of
assessments, so as to share the burden of peacekeeping operations more
equitably. It would also support efforts to introduce a 25 per cent ceiling on
individual assessments. Israel had decided to forego the 80 per cent
reduction it had previously enjoyed, and to pay its full assessment to the
United Nations peacekeeping budget.

Apart from its financial contribution, Israel had developed a training

programme in the field of peacekeeping, he said. The Israel Defence Forces
would again hold its annual International Liaison Course at the Israel Defence
Forces Liaison and Foreign Relations Division headquarters in Tel Aviv next
May. The course was designed to stimulate professional dialogue in military
liaison, based on the Israel Defence Forcess own experience with foreign
organizations. It would include lectures, field trips and simulations, as well as
dealing with the theory and practice of military liaison. The course was
designed for officers holding the rank of major and lieutenant-colonel.
Applications could be addressed to the Israel Defence Forces through military
attachs and embassies accredited to Israel.

PATRICIA DURRANT (Jamaica) said that Jamaica associated itself with the
statement of Jordan on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. She said that,
coupled with the paradigm shift in United Nations The plight of refugees and
displaced persons, the spread of diseases, and the protection of vulnerable
groups could not be ignored. Gross violations of human rights could not be
tolerated.

She underscored the recommendations of the Brahimi report relating to clear

and credible mandates, robust rules of engagement, and regular
consultations between troop-contributing countries and the Security Council,
among others. Conflict prevention, addressing the root causes of conflict and
involving women in all stages of a peace process were also important.
Systematic training of peacekeepers and civilian police was equally
important. Finally, she underlined the need for greater coordination between
missions and Headquarters and the need to review the so-called wet lease
agreement.

ALFONSO VALDIVIESO (Colombia), speaking on behalf of the Rio Group, said

his States members recognized the need to strengthen the structures and
the functioning of peacekeeping mechanisms in order to make them more
efficient. That would enhance the credibility of the United Nations and its
promotion and maintenance of international peace and security in different
areas.

He said the Group also recognized the importance of prevention and peace
building in the Organization's work. The recommendations contained in the
Brahimi report on which the Special Committee had reached agreement
should be implemented as soon as possible. It would be necessary for the
Committee, however, to consider in greater detail at its meeting in February
2001, the recommendations in the report which required more discussion.

He said the Group attached great importance to respect for the principles of
consent of the parties, impartiality, and the non-use of force except in self-
defence, in peacekeeping missions. The Group also hoped that, as the
Organization continued to strive to improve its operations to ensure peace
and international security, initiatives would be undertaken to strengthen its
efforts in the field of development. He hoped that the implementation of
peacekeeping reforms would not be to the detriment of resources allocated
to development.

GEORGE KASOULIDES (Cyprus) said that Cyprus was a very relevant case
demonstrating the pros and cons of peacekeeping and the necessity to
combine peacemaking and peace-building to avoid stalemate and
stagnation. The United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) did
not have the necessary mandate and backing to prevent The latest effort --
still in progress -- had raised hopes again, but one need only read of the
Turkish insistence for creating two separate States on the island to realize
Turkish objectives.

Only a few months ago, the Turkish occupation army advanced its positions
along the ceasefire line in the area of Strovilia, resulting in what the
Secretary-General described as a "clear violation of the status quo". The
inability to this day of UNFICYP to return the situation to the status quo ante
eroded even further the credibility of the United Nations. Peacekeeping that
continued for so many years was a real disappointment to the people of
Cyprus and the international community, and the inability of the
Organization to find a solution to the problem was a real failure for
peacekeeping. As long as this effort was not based on the Security Council
resolutions, and intransigence and non-compliance with international law
was condoned and tolerated, the problem would remain unresolved.

Effective peacekeeping operations must rest on a sure and stable financial

footing, he said. Cyprus, therefore, reiterated the need for prompt payment
of contributions and without conditions attached. In relation to the financing
of UNFICYP, the Government of Cyprus voluntarily contributed one third of
the total cost of the Force. This was a considerable and extremely heavy
burden. Furthermore, Cyprus currently voluntarily contributed an additional
one third more than its assessed contribution to all United Nations
peacekeeping operations. Cyprus had also made a commitment to give up
voluntarily the discount to which it was entitled under the present system.

JANUSZ STANCZYK (Poland) associating himself with Frances statement on

behalf of the European Union and associated countries, said that as current
Chair of the Steering Committee of the multinational Standby High-Readiness
Brigade, Poland continued to work with other participants to ensure that the
brigade became fully operational.

He said that Brigade offered important advantages in training and

coordination between national contingents which were useful in preparing
the troops of participating countries to play a more effective part in
peacekeeping operations. The contribution to it of developing countries from
outside Europe, both as members and observers, would significantly enrich,
diversify and enhance the Brigades functioning and effectiveness.

As a major troop contributor to peacekeeping operations, Poland had

designated troops for SFOR in Bosnia and Herzegovina and for KFOR in
Kosovo, he said. Altogether, more than 2,300 Polish troops, military
observers, civilian police and other civilian specialists served in various
missions. In addition, a special 115-strong police unit had just been deployed
in the United Nations Interim Administration in Kosovo (UNMIK).

That effort in the field was paralleled by the importance Poland attached to
discharging its financial obligations in full and on time, he said. Given the
countrys limited resources, that effort posed a considerable burden. Thus,
timely reimbursement of costs borne owing to participation in peacekeeping
operations was increasingly important.

ASDA JAYANAMA (Thailand) said his country attached great importance to

peacekeeping and was contributing to it, notably in East Timor. With the
Brahimi report, the United Nations could adapt to the post-cold war era.
Agreeing with the report on many issues, he added, however, that
reconciliation between warring factions was a top priority task in a complex,
intra-national peacekeeping operation.
In addition, he found it unfortunate that countries commanding abundant
resources did not contribute their fair share of troops to peacekeeping
operations. When they did contribute, their troops remained outside the
command of the United Nations. Reimbursement and safety of personnel in
peacekeeping operations were important issues, but they were not included
in the Brahimi report. He suggested creating a trust fund for that, which
would be replenished from the United Nations budget when needed.

In line with other recommendations of the Brahimi report, he believed there

was a need for good entry and exit strategies for every peacekeeping
operation. But peacekeeping should never become a permanent feature of
the global political landscape. More work needed to be done on the root
causes of conflicts.

MICHEL DUVAL (Canada) said that the Brahimi report was the beginning of an
important process -- which aimed to critically evaluate the United Nations,
and thereby making it a stronger and more effective Organization. It was also
an invaluable tool which provided proactive and pragmatic mechanisms
aimed at improving United Nations peacekeeping.

He commended the integrated approach taken by the Panel and its

recognition that, in today's security environment, the United Nations needed
the "tools" to address any conflict situation. United Nations approaches to
peacekeeping should, therefore, better reflect the multifaceted nature of
United Nations action in countries affected by war. This meant it should
become more proficient in promoting the rule of law and economic recovery,
by better integrating the military, policing, institution building, reconstruction
and civil administration functions of peacekeeping operations, especially in
regions where it substituted for collapsed local government.

He added that Canada already had in place some of the initiatives called for
in the Brahimi report, including participation in the Standby High-Readiness
Brigade and an international standby list which provided a list of 25 military
officers available to deploy to international operations. It was also important,
he added, that the United Nations be able to deploy civilian police officers
quickly into complex missions. In this regard, Canada was refining its
procedures to ensure that its civilian police officers were dispatched to new
peacekeeping operations as quickly as possible.

NASTE CALOVSKI (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) said it was

essential that all Member States supported the Secretary-General's request
for implementation of the Brahimi report recommendations, thus making the
Organization a truly credible force for peace. His country had been host to
the first United Nations preventive peacekeeping mission; the United Nations
Preventive Deployment Force (UNPREDEP). It was praised as a success story
of the United Nations. As a kind of follow-up to UNPREDEP, the International
Centre for Preventive Action and Conflict Resolution had been established in
Skopje, his country's capital.

The experience had taught three important lessons, he said, namely: the
spread of regional conflict and the rise of domestic ethnic violence were
averted by timely action; international preventive action was not a threat to
national sovereignty; and the United Nations increased the effectiveness of
its efforts by working cooperatively with a regional organization, in this case,
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

He said one of the common characteristics of United Nations peacekeeping

missions was that they lasted a long time. This illustrated the ineffectiveness
and irrelevance of the Organization and a lack of political will of Member
States to resolve the conflict. He suggested the General Assembly might
decide to consider all peacekeeping missions of more than five years'
duration to ascertain the future of those missions. Regarding the Panel's
recommendations, he said that preventive action and peace building
required much more attention as that style of operation would be much more
dominant than the traditional peacekeeping operations in the future.

SAFAK GOKTURK (Turkey) said his country played an increasingly prominent

part in peace-building and peacekeeping efforts within both United Nations
and regional missions. It has also signed on to arrangements such as the
United Nations standby system, and had made training an integral part of its
peacekeeping commitments, with participants from around the world
attending its Peace Training Centre in Ankara. It also supported efforts to
rebuild the socio-economic base of post-conflict societies.

He said members of the Security Council, when mandating missions, should

act as if they were contributing personnel from their countries. In addition,
resolutions mandating a mission should avoid prejudging the dispute, so as
not to help perpetuate the conflict. All consultations between the Security
Council and troop-contributing countries should be interactive and allow for
modification of the resolution texts.

While standby arrangements needed to be strengthened, he went on, the

inseparability of military contingents and hardware must be taken into
account. Contingent-training should be offered by Member States and
coordinated by the United Nations, which should also work with regional
organizations to project credible force and a workable transition structure.
Special attention should be paid to providing assistance in law enforcement
and justice. Finally, the restructuring of the Secretariat needed to go far
beyond the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, since peacekeeping
had become multidimensional. The Department itself needed to become the
home of a truly specialized workforce for establishing and streamlining
missions. The recommendations of the Brahimi Panel for integrated mission
task forces point in the right direction.
HIRA BAHADUR THAPA (Nepal), associating himself with the statement on
behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, noted that the hasty deployment of a
peacekeeping mission with an inadequate mandate could lead to crisis, as
had been demonstrated by the recent events in Sierra Leone. The UNAMSIL
presented a case study highlighting the urgent need for closer consultations
between troop-contributing countries and the Security Council.

He agreed that it was imperative to equip the Secretariat in a manner

commensurate with its peacekeeping responsibilities, but stressed that
increased peacekeeping requirements should not be met at the expense of
development activities. There should be no diversion of funds from
development to peacekeeping in the name of additional resources for the
Department of Peacekeeping Operations.

The Brahimi Panel had vividly spelt out that peacekeeping operations should
be supported by all Member States, he said. Unfortunately, hesitation by
some countries, particularly those entrusted with the special responsibility of
maintaining global peace and security, sent a negative signal to other States,
discouraging them from committing their troops to peacekeeping missions.
That anomaly must be removed if future peacekeeping was to bring about
the desired results.

He said the fact that 77 per cent of deployed peacekeepers were from
developing countries using deficient equipment should not be allowed to
continue. The present arrangement of contingent-owned equipment,
requiring that troops be fully self-sustained, required proper review as it
constrained the participation of some willing countries. In addition, delayed
reimbursement for contingent- owned equipment put the least developed
among the developing countries at even greater disadvantage.

BERHANEMESKEL NEGA (Ethiopia), associating himself with the statement on

behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, stressed the contribution of regional
arrangements in the maintenance of international peace and security. He
said the Organization of African Unity (OAU) was actively engaged in the
prevention, management and resolution of conflicts in the region, including
continuing efforts to resolve the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea, in
cooperation with the United Nations and other interested States.

Referring to recommendations of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping

Operations, with regard to enhancing African peacekeeping capacity, he said
Ethiopia recognized that the United Nations and the OAU had continued to
cooperate over the past year. Nevertheless, much remained to be done in
implementation of the Special Committees recommendations and Ethiopia
looked forward to concrete action in that regard.

Turning to the United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea, he noted that
military observers had been deployed in the two countries and that plans
were under way for the full deployment of up to 4,200 troops. The
Government of Ethiopia would continue to cooperate fully to ensure the
Missions success. To that end, Ethiopia was currently finalizing with the
Secretariat the draft status of forces agreement for its conclusion as soon
as possible.

BERTRAND FILS-AIM (Haiti) said that without new commitment on the part
of Member States, the United Nations would not have the means in the
future to keep peace as desired by those Member States. The prevention of
conflict and promotion of development was, though, a better way of keeping
that peace. On the other hand, he would not want to minimize concerns of
Member States over interventions that did not respect national sovereignty
and other principles of the United Nations Charter. However, principles of
non-interference should not bar operations meant to stop such horrors as
genocide. International consensus along clear principles must guide such
actions.

He appealed to Member States to fulfil their financial commitments fully and

on time. Some of the small developing Members, it was true, worried about
the financial implications of the Brahimi reports recommendations. Such
implications should be openly discussed. He said that the roots of conflicts
were complex; peacekeeping operations alone could not deal with them.
More attention must be paid to socio-economic conditions, and me to combat
racism and xenophobia.

HIRA BAHADUR THAPA (Nepal), associating himself with the statement on

behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, noted that the hasty deployment of a
peacekeeping mission with an inadequate mandate could lead to crisis, as
had been demonstrated by the recent events in Sierra Leone. The United
Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) presented a case study
highlighting the urgent need for closer consultations between troop-
contributing countries and the Security Council.

He agreed that it was imperative to equip the Secretariat in a manner

commensurate with its peacekeeping responsibilities, but stressed that
increased peacekeeping requirements should not be met at the expense of
development activities. There should be no diversion of funds from
development to peacekeeping in the name of additional resources for the
Department of Peacekeeping Operations.

The Brahimi Panel had vividly spelt out that peacekeeping operations should
be supported by all Member States, he said. Unfortunately, hesitation by
some countries, particularly those entrusted with the special responsibility of
maintaining global peace and security, sent a negative signal to other States,
discouraging them from committing their troops to peacekeeping missions.
That anomaly must be removed if future peacekeeping was to bring about
the desired results.
He said the fact that 77 per cent of deployed peacekeepers were from
developing countries using deficient equipment should not be allowed to
continue. The present arrangement of contingent-owned equipment,
requiring that troops be fully self-sustained, required proper review as it
constrained the participation of some willing countries. In addition, delayed
reimbursement for contingent- owned equipment put the least developed
among the developing countries at even greater disadvantage.

BERHANEMESKEL NEGA (Ethiopia), associating himself with the statement on

behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, stressed the contribution of regional
arrangements in the maintenance of international peace and security. He
said the Organization of African Unity (OAU) was actively engaged in the
prevention, management and resolution of conflicts in the region, including
continuing efforts to resolve the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea, in
cooperation with the United Nations and other interested States.

Referring to recommendations of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping

Operations, with regard to enhancing African peacekeeping capacity, he said
Ethiopia recognized that the United Nations and the OAU had continued to
cooperate over the past year. Nevertheless, much remained to be done in
implementation of the Special Committees recommendations and Ethiopia
looked forward to concrete action in that regard.

Turning to the United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea, he noted that
military observers had been deployed in the two countries and that plans
were under way for the full deployment of up to 4,200 troops. The
Government of Ethiopia would continue to cooperate fully to ensure the
Missions success. To that end, Ethiopia was currently finalizing with the
Secretariat the draft status of forces agreement for its conclusion as soon
as possible.

BERTRAND FILS-AIM (Haiti) said that without new commitment on the part
of Member States, the United Nations would not have the means in the
future to keep peace as desired by those Member States. One prevention of
conflict and promotion of development was, though, a better way of keeping
that peace. On the other hand, he would not want to minimize concerns of
Member States over interventions that did not respect national sovereignty
and other principles of the United Nations Charter. However, principles of
non-interference should not bar operations meant to stop such horrors as
genocide. International consensus along clear principles must guide such
actions.

He appealed to Member States to fulfill their financial commitments fully and

on time. Some of the small developing members, it was true, worried about
the financial implications of the Brahimi reports recommendations. Such
implications should be openly discussed. He said that the roots of conflicts
were complex, peacekeeping operations alone could not deal with them.
More attention must be paid to socio-economic conditions, and to
engendering the culture of peace in populations, promoting educational
programs to combat racism and xenophobia.

JOSEPH MUTABOBA (Rwanda) said that wherever the United Nations had
deployed peacekeepers, the failures of some missions had shown similar
characteristics, leading to the conclusion that the peacekeeping operations
of the Organization must be reformed.

He said peacekeeping required adequate logistics combined with clear

mandates, trained personnel and well-equipped troops, with the skills
required to protect civilians and humanitarian personnel as well as
themselves.

He said that the Brahimi report was clear on disarmament, demobilization

and rehabilitation. Peace could not be maintained for long if the enemies of
peace remained armed and active. The question was, who would do the job?
It was hoped that the new Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping
Operations would lend his talents to enable the Security Council to maintain
lasting peace.

ABDELKADER MESDOUA (Algeria) said his country shared the views,

expectations and concerns expressed by Jordan on behalf of the Non-Aligned
Movement. Concerning recommendations for the restructuring of the
Department of Peacekeeping Operations, he said a reorganization of
available resources would be, in that area, preferable to the creation of a
new structure.

He said he agreed with many of the other recommendations of the Brahimi

report, such as the need for clear, viable mandates and the need to put in
place all conditions necessary for the success of a mission. Those conditions
included respect on the part of all parties for mandates and for the relevant
peace agreements. Peacekeepers should be in a position to defend
themselves, the peace and the populations.

It was difficult for him to accept the dwindling participation of developed

countries in providing troops, as well as delays in reimbursement of the
developing countries who have so provided troops. Algeria was also
disturbed that non-mastery of English would bar participation in
peacekeeping operations, when a majority of countries used other working
language.

Financing peacekeeping

While decisions about establishing, maintaining or expanding a

peacekeeping operation are taken by the Security Council, the
financing of UN Peacekeeping operations is the collective
responsibility of all UN Member States.

UN Photo/Marie Frechon
UNAMID holds a ceremony in Nyala, Sudan, to celebrate the arrival of five
tactical helicopters from the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.
Pictured is one of the long-awaited helicopters.

Every Member State is legally obligated to pay their respective share

towards peacekeeping. This is in accordance with the provisions of Article 17
of the Charter of the United Nations.

The General Assembly apportions peacekeeping expenses based on a special

scale of assessments under a complex formula that Member States
themselves have established. This formula takes into account, among other
things, the relative economic wealth of Member States, with the five
permanent members of the Security Council required to pay a larger share
because of their special responsibility for the maintenance of international
peace and security.

The General Assembly reaffirmed these and other general principles

underlying the financing of peacekeeping operations in resolution
A/RES/55/235 (23 December 2000).

More on how UN Peacekeeping is financed.

See the scale of assessments applicable to UN peacekeeping operations in

the selected General Assembly documents.

How much does peacekeeping cost?

The approved budget for UN Peacekeeping operations for the fiscal year 1
July 2017-30 June 2018 is $6.8 billion. (A/C.5/71/24)

This amount finances 13 of the 15 United Nations peacekeeping missions,

supports logistics for the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), and
provides support, technology and logistics to all peace operations through
global service centres in Brindisi (Italy) and Valencia (Spain) and a regional
service centre in Entebbe (Uganda). Note the remaining two peacekeeping
missions, the UN Truce Supervision Orgazation (UNTSO) and the UN Military
Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP), are financed through the
UN regular budget.
The General Assembly will also consider additional requirements for the
Hybrid African Union - United Nations Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) and the
new mission in Haiti MINUJUSTH in the fall of 2017.

By way of comparison, the UN Peacekeeping budget is less than half of one

per cent of world military expenditures (estimated at $1,747 billion in 2013).

The 2017-18 budget represents an average of 7.5% on the approved budget

for 2016-17. (A/C.5/70/24)

The top 10 providers of assessed contributions to United Nations

Peacekeeping operations for 2017 are:

1. United States (28.47%)

2. China (10.25%)

3. Japan (9.68%)

4. Germany (6.39%)

5. France (6.28%)

6. United Kingdom (5.77%)

7. Russian Federation (3.99%)

8. Italy (3.75%)

9. Canada (2.92%)

10. Spain (2.44%)

View the full list of assessed contributions by country, 2016-2018:

(A/70/331/Add.1)

View the full list of assessed contributions by country, 2013-2015:

(A/67/224/Add.1)

Many countries have also voluntarily made additional resources available to

support UN Peacekeeping efforts on a non-reimbursable basis in the form of
transportation, supplies, personnel and financial contributions above and
beyond their assessed share of peacekeeping costs.

Approved resources for peacekeeping operations in selected General

Assembly documents.
 How are resources budgeted?

Budgets of peacekeeping operations are based on the missions mandate

from the Security Council. As such, they are strategic documents aligning
resources to achieve the overall objectives of the operation.

Each peacekeeping operation has its own budget and account which includes
operational costs such as transport and logistics and staff costs such as
salaries.

The peacekeeping budget cycle runs from 1 July to 30 June. This cycle is
rarely aligned with the Security Council mandate; however budgets are
prepared for 12 months based on of the most current mandate of the
operation.

The Secretary-General submits budget proposal to the Advisory Committee

on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ). The ACABQ reviews the
proposal and makes recommendations to the General Assemblys Fifth
Committee for its review and approval. Ultimately, the budget is endorsed by
the General Assembly as a whole.

At the end of the financial cycle, each peacekeeping operation prepares and
submits a performance report which shows the actual use of resources. This
report is also considered and approved by the General Assembly.

More on the process of establishing peacekeeping operation budget.

How are peacekeepers compensated?

The UN has no military forces of its own, and Member States provide, on a
voluntary basis, the military and police personnelrequired for each
peacekeeping operation.

Peacekeeping soldiers are paid by their own Governments according to their

own national rank and salary scale. Countries volunteering uniformed
personnel to peacekeeping operations are reimbursed by the UN at a
standard rate, approved by the General Assembly, of a little over US$1,332
per soldier per month.

Police and other civilian personnel are paid from the peacekeeping budgets
established for each operation.

The UN also reimburses Member States for providing equipment, personnel

and support services to military or police contingents.
United Nations Peacekeepers: Which Countries Provide the Most
Troops and Funding?
by KFC on JANUARY 10, 2017

A The United Nations has no army, but it does have UN Peacekeepers. The
goal of UN Peacekeepers is to create conditions for lasting
peace. Peacekeeping is guided by three principles: consent of parties
(countries must invite UN peacekeepers to enter; the UN cannot just send
peacekeepers anywhere), impartiality, and non-use of force except in self-
defense and defense of the mandate written in the resolution. Peacekeepers
are sent upon UN Security Council recommendations, and often only when
ceasefire has already been established as most countries do not want their
soldiers to enter into active war zones.

The UN currently has 100,950 peacekeepers as of August 2016 (the latest

data available). If the UN peacekeeping force was ranked against national
militaries, it would be the 44th largest military in the world, or around the
same size as the number of active military troops in Malaysia or Angola.
The 100,950 UN Peacekeepers are currently deployed on 20 UN
peacekeeping missions around the world. The largest mission is the United
Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, or MONUSCO, with 18,333 UN Peacekeepers deployed.
123 countries currently provide the military troops and police forces that
make up the UN Peacekeeping force. Countries can also provide experts as
part of a peacekeeping mission.
Here are the Top 25 countries providing UN Peacekeepers:

1. Ethiopia (8,326)
2. India (7,471)
3. Pakistan (7,161)
4. Bangladesh (6,772)
5. Rwanda (6,146)
6. Nepal (5,131)
7. Senegal (3,617)
8. Burkina Faso (3,036)
9. Ghana (2,972)
10. Egypt (2,889)
11. Indonesia (2,867)
12. China (2,639)
13. Tanzania (2,341)
14. Nigeria (2,170)
15. Niger (1,871)
16. Togo (1,661)
17. Morocco (1,607)
18. Chad (1,489)
19. Uruguay (1,457)
20. South Africa (1,427)
21. Brazil (1,303)
22. Kenya (1,229)
23. Benin (1,174)
24. Cameroon (1,137)
25. Italy (1,114)
You can find the list of all 123 countries ranked here.
Ethiopia is the #1 provider with 8,326 peacekeepers, or about 6% of its
138,000 active military troops. Their peacekeepers primarily support UNAMID
in Darfur, Sudan, and UNISFA between Sudan and South
Sudan. Responsibility for peacekeeping has increasingly shifted
toward regional leaders, and African countries are among the top providers
of peacekeepers as many UN peacekeeping missions are located in Africa.
South Asian countries have traditionally been top providers for
peacekeepers. India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are all in the top five, and
Nepal is sixth in terms of peacekeepers. Almost all of their peacekeepers are
deployed on missions in Africa. This is partially because the UN pays a
standardized reimbursement rate that is higher than the cost of that troops
salary. For example, an entry-level soldier in India makes about 25,000 Indian
rupees (approximately $366) per month, but the UN will reimburse the
government of India the standard rate of $1,332 per soldier per month. That
said, India also sees its high peacekeeping contribution as a reason for why it
should have a seat on the UN Security Council.
China has historically been reluctant to intervene in other countries and
traditionally did not provide peacekeepers. However, that has
recently changed. China is now the 12th largest provider of peacekeepers. It
is also a P5 Member of the Security Council (the UN organ that can send
peacekeepers) and the second-largest contributor to the UN peacekeeping
budget. In other words, China is now an active player from the beginning-to-
end in peacekeeping operations: it votes on the resolutions to send
peacekeepers, it deploys its own troops as peacekeepers, and it funds the
peacekeeping missions.
Keep in mind that funding the UN peacekeeping missions is different than
providing UN peacekeepers. UN peacekeeping missions are funded by
assessments (similar to how the overall UN General Assembly budget is
funded). That means every UN Member State is required to pay a percentage
of the total UN peacekeeping budget roughly proportional to that countrys
gross domestic product (GDP). Member States can voluntarily contribute
more funding or equipment and supplies if they wish.

The approved budget for UN peacekeeping operations for the fiscal year of
July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017 is $7.87 billion, which is slightly smaller than its
previous fiscal years budget. A military budget of $7.87 billion would rank
the UN 26th if compared against other national military budgets, or smaller
than Polands military budget of about $9 billion.
The Top 10 countries funding the UN peacekeeping budget are:

1. United States (28.57%)

2. China (10.29%)
3. Japan (9.68%)
4. Germany (6.39%)
5. France (6.31%)
6. United Kingdom (5.80%)
7. Russian Federation (4.01%)
8. Italy (3.75%)
9. Canada (2.92%)
10. Spain (2.44%)
You can find the full list of assessments for all 193 Member States in the
latest General Assembly resolution here.
So the next time UN Peacekeepers are brought up, make sure the committee
knows how the peacekeeping missions function, who provides the
peacekeepers, and who funds the peacekeeping missions! This includes
knowing your own countrys personnel and financial contributions to such
missions, which would partially help inform your countrys policy toward such
solutions.

What is peacekeeping?

United Nations Peacekeeping helps countries torn by conflict

create conditions for lasting peace.

Actor George Clooney speaks of UN Peacekeepers.

Peacekeeping has proven to be one of the most effective toolsavailable to

the UN to assist host countries navigate the difficult path from conflict to
peace.

Peacekeeping has unique strengths, including legitimacy, burden sharing,

and an ability to deploy and sustain troops and police from around the globe,
integrating them with civilian peacekeepers to advance multidimensional
mandates.

UN Peacekeepers provide security and the political and peacebuilding

support to help countries make the difficult, early transition from conflict to
peace.

UN Peacekeeping is guided by three basic principles:

Consent of the parties;

Impartiality;

Non-use of force except in self-defence and defence of the mandate.

Peacekeeping is flexible and over the past two decades has been deployed in
many configurations. There are currently 15 UN peacekeeping
operations deployed on four continents.

Today's multidimensional peacekeeping operations are called upon not only

to maintain peace and security, but also to facilitate the political
process, protect civilians, assist in the disarmament, demobilization and
reintegration of former combatants; support the organization of elections,
protect and promote human rights and assist in restoring the rule of law.

Success is never guaranteed, because UN Peacekeeping almost by definition

goes to the most physically and politically difficult environments. However,
we have built up a demonstrable record of success over our 60 years of
existence, including winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

Peacekeeping has always been highly dynamic and has evolved in the face of
new challenges. Former Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon established a 17-
member High-level Independent Panel on UN Peace Operations to make a
comprehensive assessment of the state of UN peace operations today, and
the emerging needs of the future.

Reform of peacekeeping

In 2000, the UN started a major exercise to analyze its

peacekeeping experience, and introduce a series of reforms to
strengthen its capacity to manage and sustain field operations.

UN Photo/Marie Frechon

This was brought about by the surge in demand for UN peacekeepers, with
the blue helmets being increasingly asked to deploy to remote and often
volatile environments. Peacekeeping also faced a varied set of challenges
which included:

deploying its largest, most expensive and increasingly complex

operations;

designing and executing transition strategies for operations where

stability has been achieved;

equipping communities as far as possible with capacity to ensure long-

term peace and stability.
 High-level Independent Panel on UN Peace Operations

Former Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon established a High-level Independent

Panel on UN Peace Operations on 31 October 2014, to make a
comprehensive assessment of the state of UN peace operations today, and
the emerging needs of the future. Announcing the decision, the Secretary-
General said that the world is changing and UN peace operations must
change with it if they are to remain an indispensable and effective tool in
promoting international peace and security. With the 15-year anniversary of
the Brahimi report approaching, the Secretary-General felt that it was
necessary to again take stock of evolving expectations of UN peacekeeping
and how the Organization can work toward a shared view of the way
forward.

The 16-member Panel was chaired by Mr. Jose Ramos-Horta of Timor-Leste

with Ms, Ameerah Haq of Bangladesh as Vice-Chair. It drew together a wide
range of experience and expertise.

The Panel considered a broad range of issues facing peace operations,

including the changing nature of conflict, evolving mandates, good offices
and peacebuilding challenges, managerial and administrative arrangements,
planning, partnerships, human rights and protection of civilians. The review
encompasses both UN peacekeeping operations as well as special political
missions , which are referred to collectively as UN peace operations.

The Secretary-General received the Panel's report on 16 June 2015. The

Secretary will study the recommendations of the report carefully and
transmit it to the General Assembly and the Security Council.

Brahimi report

In March 2000, the Secretary-General appointed the Panel on United Nations

Peace Operations to assess the shortcomings of the then existing system and
to make specific and realistic recommendations for change. The panel was
composed of individuals experienced in conflict prevention, peacekeeping
and peacebuilding.

The result, known as the Brahimi Report , after Lakhdar Brahimi, the
Chair of the Panel, called for:

renewed political commitment on the part of Member States;

significant institutional change;

 increased financial support.

The Panel noted that in order to be effective, UN peacekeeping operations

must be properly resourced and equipped, and operate under clear, credible
and achievable mandates.

Peacekeeping policy and strategy reform

Following the Brahimi report, UN Member States and the UN Secretariat

continued major reform efforts, including through:

Capstone Doctrine (2008), outlining the most important principles

and guidelines for UN peacekeepers in the field;

Peace operations 2010 (2006), containing the reform strategy of the

Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO);

2005 World Summit [A/RES/60/1] , establishing the Peacebuilding

Commission;

High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change [A/59/565] ,

setting out a broad framework for collective security for the new
century.

New Horizon

The most recent reform documents The New Partnership Agenda: Charting
a New Horizon for UN Peacekeeping (2009) and its Progress Reports
No.1 (2010) and No.2 (2011) assess the major policy and strategy
dilemmas facing UN peacekeeping today and in the coming years.

They attempt to reinvigorate the ongoing dialogue with Member States and
other partners on how to better adjust UN peacekeeping to meet current and
future requirements. Read more about New Horizon.

Restructuring the peacekeeping department

The major structural change as part of peacekeeping reform took place in

2007. To strengthen the UNs capacity to manage and sustain new peace
operations, the Secretary-General restructured [A/61/858] the
peacekeeping architecture by:
 Splitting DPKO into two, creating a new, separate Department of Field
Support (DFS);

Bolstering the support for new activities in DPKO;

Augmenting resources in both Departments and in other parts of the

Secretariat dealing with peacekeeping.

DFS developed the Global Field Support Strategy [A/64/633] in 2010 aimed
at transforming service delivery to the field and adapting it to the
requirements of todays peacekeeping operations. Once implemented ,
support to the field will become more predictable, professional and flexible,
while ensuring cost efficiencies and transparency.

Rates of reimbursement to troop contributing countries

Historically, the countries who provide troops for peacekeeping missions are
reimbursed for their contribution by the UN. The question of the rates is
therefore extremely important for a large number of countries - whether it's
through the direct provision of military personnel or through the financial
obligations that make deployment of a peacekeeping presence possible.

In 2011, the General Assembly (GA) decided to tackle this subject in a

comprehensive manner. The GA requested the Secretary-General to
establish a Senior Advisory Group (SAG) to examine the "rates of
reimbursement to troop-contributing countries and related issues" (ref.
GA Resolution 65/289 of 30 June 2011). The SAG's membership,
stipulated in the Resolution, includes five eminent persons of relevant
experience appointed by the Secretary-General, five representatives from
major troop contributors, five representatives from major financial
contributors and one member designated from each of the regional
groups. Former UN Deputy Secretary-General and Canadian Deputy
Minister of Defence, Louise Frchette, was appointed as the Chair of this
Group. The SAG intends to complete its review by the summer of 2012,
and its report will be submitted to the Secretary-General and then passed
to the General Assembly.

Conduct and discipline reform

Other reforms have been introduced in the field of conduct and discipline.
The Secretary-General imposed a zero tolerance policy following allegations
of sexual exploitation and abuse by UN peacekeepers in host countries.

At the request of the Secretary-General, the then Permanent Representative

of Jordan to the UN, Prince Zeid Raad Zeid Al-Hussein, produced a sweeping
strategy, known as the Zeid Report [A/59/710] . It recommended engaging
troop and police contributors, other Member States and the wider UN system
in a new conduct and disciplining architecture for peacekeeping.

In 2008, an UN-wide strategy for assistance to the victims of sexual

exploitation and abuse by UN personnel was adopted by the General
Assembly in resolution A/RES/62/214

Cold War[edit]
Throughout the Cold War, the tensions on the UN Security Council made it
difficult to implement peacekeeping measures in countries and regions seen
to relate to the spread or containment of leftist and revolutionary
movements. While some conflicts were separate enough from the Cold War
to achieve consensus support for peacekeeping missions, most were too
deeply enmeshed in the global struggle.
International conflicts[edit]

The UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP), begun in 1964, attempted

to end the conflict between the ethnic Greeks and Turks on the island and
prevent wider conflict between NATO members Turkey and Greece. A second
observer force, UNIPOM, was also dispatched, in 1965 to the areas of the
India-Pakistan border that were not being monitored by the earlier mission,
UNMOGIP, after a ceasefire in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. Neither of
these disputes were seen to have Cold War or ideological implications.
There was one exception to the rule. In the Mission of the Representative of
the Secretary-General in the Dominican Republic (DOMREP), 19651966, the
UN authorized an observer mission in a country where ideological factions
were facing off. However, the mission was only initiated after the US
intervened unilaterally in a civil war between leftist and conservative
factions. The US had consolidated its hold and invited a force of
the Organization of American States (dominated by US troops) to keep the
peace. The mission was approved mainly because the Americans presented
it as fait accompli and because the UN mission was not a full peacekeeping
force. It included only two observers at any time and left the peacekeeping
to another international organization. It was the first time the UN operated in
this manner with a regional bloc.
 Decolonization[edit]

The UN also assisted with two decolonization programs during the Cold War.
In 1960, the UN sent ONUC to help facilitate the decolonization of
the Congo from Belgian control. It stayed on until 1964 to help maintain
stability and prevent the breakup of the country during the Congo Crisis.
In West New Guinea from 1962 to 1963, UNSF maintained law and order
while the territory was transferred from Dutch colonial control to Indonesia.
Middle East conflicts[edit]

The Middle East, where combatants were generally not firmly aligned with
the superpowers, who mainly sought stability in the crucial oil-producing
region, was the most visible location of UN peacekeeping during the Cold
War. In 1958, UNOGIL was authorized to ensure that there was no illegal
infiltration of personnel or supply of arms across the Lebanese borders,
mainly from the United Arab Republic. A few years later, the Yemen Observer
Mission (UNYOM), authorized in 1963, attempted to end civil war in
Yemen with sides supported by regional rivals Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Throughout the 1970s, the UN also authorized several peacekeeping
missions to attempt to calm the ArabIsraeli conflict, in Suez (UNEF II) in
1973 and in the Golan Heights (UNDOF) in 1974 concluding the Yom Kippur
War, and Lebanon (UNIFIL) in 1978 following the 1978 South Lebanon
conflict. In the 1980s only one new mission was authorized in the
region, UNIIMOG, to supervise the withdrawal of troops to the internationally
recognized border between Iraq and Iran after almost eight years of
war between those two countries.

End of the Cold War[edit]

With the decline of the Soviet Union and the advent of perestroika, the Soviet
Union drastically decreased its military and economic support for a number
of "proxy" civil wars around the globe. It also withdrew its support from
satellite states and one UN peacekeeping mission, UNGOMAP, was designed
to oversee the PakistanAfghanistan border and the withdrawal of Soviet
troops from Afghanistan as the USSR began to refocus domestically. In 1991,
the USSR dissolved into 15 independent states. Conflicts broke out in two
former Soviet Republics, the GeorgianAbkhazian conflict in Georgia and
a civil war in Tajikistan, which were eventually policed by UN peacekeeping
forces, UNOMIGand UNMOT respectively.
With the end of the Cold War, a number of nations called for the UN to
become an organization of world peace and do more to encourage the end to
conflicts around the globe. The end of political gridlock in the Security
Council helped the number of peacekeeping missions increased substantially.
In a new spirit of cooperation, the Security Council established larger and
more complex UN peacekeeping missions. Furthermore, peacekeeping came
to involve more and more non-military elements that ensured the proper
operation of civic functions, such as elections. The UN Department of
Peacekeeping Operations was created in 1992 to support the increased
demand for such missions.
A number of missions were designed to end civil wars in which competing
sides had been sponsored by Cold War players. In Angola (UNAVEM
I, II and III) aimed to end fighting between rebel, anti-Communist UNITA and
the ruling, Communist MPLA. ONUMOZ was similarly designed to oversee the
end of the conflict between the anti-Communist RENAMOand the leftist
government in Mozambique, ending the Mozambican Civil War.
In Cambodia UNAMIC, and then UNTAC for the first time took over control of
the entire state on behalf of the UN and organized and ran an election before
turning control over to the elected government. In Central
America, ONUCA oversaw the restriction of cross-border aid by any one
country to insurgencies in any other. Five nations were involved: El
Salvador, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Honduras. The guerrilla
movements in all five countries, variously communist and anti-communist,
gave way to UN-brokered peace agreements in the 1990s. In El Salvador, a
further internal UN peacekeeping force, (ONUSAL), was authorized to verify
the ceasefire between the socialist FMLN and the government. Similarly, in
Guatemala, MINUGUA was authorized in 1996 to verify the ceasefire there
between leftist URNG and the conservative government.

Post Cold War[edit]

International conflicts[edit]

In 1991, the political situation created by the collapse of the USSR allowed
the first explicitly-authorized operation of collective self-defense since the
Korean War: expelling Iraq from Kuwait in the Gulf War. Following the
cessation of hostilities, the UN authorized United Nations IraqKuwait
Observation Mission (UNIKOM) to monitor the DMZ between the two
countries. Two other inter-state conflicts have been the cause for UN
peacekeeping since. In 1994, the UN Aouzou Strip Observer Group (UNASOG)
oversaw the withdrawal of Libya from a strip of contested territory in
accordance with the decision of the International Court of Justice. In
2000, UN Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE) was established to monitor
the cessation of hostilities after the EritreanEthiopian War.
Civil Wars[edit]

The 1990s also saw the UN refocus its attention on genocide and ethnic
cleansing. The Civil War in Rwanda and the breakup of Yugoslaviaboth were
occasions of widespread atrocities and ethnic violence. Eight UN
peacekeeping missions have been sent to the former
Yugoslavia, UNPROFOR, UNCRO, UNPREDEP, UNMIBH, UNTAES, UNMOP, UNPS
G, and UNMIK as well as two to Rwanda, UNAMIR and UNOMUR.
Despite the cessation of international, Cold-War inspired aid, civil wars
continued in many regions and the UN attempted to bring peace. Several
conflicts were the cause of multiple peace-keeping missions.
The collapse of Somalia into the Somali Civil War in 1991 saw UNOSOM
I, UNITAF, and UNOSOM II fail to bring peace and stability, though they did
mitigate the effects of the famine.
The First Liberian Civil War resulted in the authorization of UNOMIL in
September 1993 to assist and supervise the troops of the Economic
Community of West African States (ECOWAS), which had intervened militarily
at the request of the Liberian government, and oversee the maintenance of
the peace agreement in the nation. However, two rebel groups instigated
the Second Liberian Civil War in 2003, and UNMIL was dispatched to oversee
the implementation of the ceasefire agreement and continues to assist in
national security reform.
A coup in Haiti in 1991, followed by internal violence, was the impetus for
the UN Mission in Haiti (UNMIH). In 1996 and 1997 three
missions, UNSMIH, UNTMIH, and MIPONUH, were organized with the goal of
reforming, training, and assisting the police through a period of political
turmoil. A coup d'tat in 2004 saw the ouster of the president and the UN
authorized MINUSTAH to stabilize the country.
In Sudan, the UN initially sponsored UNMIS to enforce a ceasefire between
the Sudan People's Liberation Army/Movement and the Sudanese
government. Since then, rebel groups in Darfur have clashed with
government-sponsored forces, resulting in UNAMID, the AU/UN Hybrid
Operation in Darfur. Violence in Darfur, spilled over the border into Chad and
the Central African Republic. In 2007, MINURCAT was deployed to minimize
violence to civilians and prevent interference of aid distribution related to
violence in Darfur.
The UN has also organized single peacekeeping missions aimed at ending
civil wars in a number of countries. In Central African Republic, MINURCA
(1998) was created to oversee the disarmament of several mutinous groups
of former CAR military personnel and militias as well as to assist with the
training of a new national police and the running of elections. The mission
was extended after successful elections to help ensure further stability.
In Sierra Leone, UNOMSIL/UNAMSIL) in 1999, followed the ECOMOG-led
restoration of the government after a coup. In 1999, in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo MONUC was designed to monitor the ceasefire after
the Second Congo Warit continues to operate due to continuing violence in
parts of the DRC. In Cote d'Ivoire, UNOCI was dispatched to enforce a 2004
peace agreement ending the Ivorian Civil War, though the country remains
divided. Following ceasefire agreements ending the Burundi Civil War, ONUB
was authorized in 2004 to oversee the implementation of the Arusha Peace
Accords.
Independence facilitation efforts[edit]

UN Peacekeepers have also been used to oversee independence movements

and the establishment of new states. Beginning in
1989, UNTAG in Namibia oversaw the withdrawal of South Africa and the
election of a new government. In 1991, a ceasefire and referendum were
planned by Morocco regarding the region of Western Sahara. Disagreements
prevented the referendum, but the ceasefire continues to be monitored
by MINURSO. In East Timor, in 1999, a referendum voted for independence
from Indonesia. Violence by anti-independence forces followed
and UNTAET was set up to establish control and administer the territory until
independence, after which an assistance mission was
established, UNMISET. Violence during 2006 led to the establishment
of UNMIT, which continues to monitor the situation.

Assessment[edit]
A 2005 RAND Corporation study found the UN to be successful in two out of
three peacekeeping efforts. It compared UN nation-building efforts to those
of the United States, and found that seven out of eight UN cases are at
peace, as opposed to four out of eight US cases at peace.[5]Also in 2005,
the Human Security Report documented a decline in the number of wars,
genocides and human rights abuses since the end of the Cold War, and
presented evidence, albeit circumstantial, that international activismmostly
spearheaded by the UNhas been the main cause of the decline in armed
conflict since the end of the Cold War.[6]
The UN has also drawn criticism for perceived failures. In some cases, the
Security Council has failed to pass resolutions or the member stateshave
been reluctant to fully enforce them in the face of deteriorating conditions.
Disagreements in the Security Council are seen as having failed to prevent
the 1994 Rwandan Genocide.[7][8] UN and international inaction has also been
cited for failing to intervene and provide sufficient humanitarian aid during
the Second Congo War,[9] the failure of UN peacekeepers to prevent the
1995 Srebrenica massacre,[10] failure to provide effective humanitarian aid
in Somalia,[11] failing to implement provisions of Security Council resolutions
related to the IsraeliPalestinian conflict, Kashmir dispute and continuing
failure to prevent genocide or provide assistance in Darfur.[12][13]
One suggestion to address the problem of delays such as the one in Rwanda,
is a rapid reaction force: a standing group, administered by the UN and
deployed by the Security Council that receives its troops and support from
current Security Council members and is ready for quick deployment in the
event of future genocides.[14]
UN peacekeepers have also been accused of sexual abuse including child
rape, gang rape, and soliciting prostitutes during peacekeeping missions in
the Congo,[15] Haiti,[16][17] Liberia,[18] Sudan,[19] Burundi, and Cte d'Ivoire.[20]
In response to criticism, including reports of sexual abuse by peacekeepers,
the UN has taken steps toward reforming its operations. The Brahimi
Report was the first of many steps to recap former peacekeeping missions,
isolate flaws, and take steps to patch these mistakes to ensure the efficiency
of future peacekeeping missions.[21] The UN has vowed to continue to put
these practices into effect when performing peacekeeping operations in the
future. The technocratic aspects of the reform process have been continued
and revitalised by the DPKO in its 'Peace Operations 2010' reform agenda.
The 2008 capstone doctrine entitled "United Nations Peacekeeping
Operations: Principles and Guidelines"[22] incorporates and builds on the
Brahimi analysis.
In 2013, the NGO Transparency International released a report critical of UN
Peacekeeping anti-corruption guidance and oversight

Formed at the conclusion of World War II, the United Nations seeks to
maintain international security and peace, while developing friendly relations
amongst nations. Consisting of 192 members (for now), the UN has been
largely successful in ending various conflicts and wars. Despite their success,
they have also witnessed a number of catastrophic failures, resulting in
millions of innocent civilian deaths. Below are ten failures of the UN since its
inception.

10

Terrorism

Many experts agree that modern terrorism began with the 1968 hijacking
of El Al Israel Flight 426 by a Palestinian terrorist organization. The United
Nations condemned the action, but failed to take any further action. These
terrorist acts continued throughout the remainder of the twentieth century,
with no reaction from the UN; a simple condemnation was as far as they
would go.

With the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the UN finally took action, outlawing terrorism
and punishing those responsible for the attacks. Unfortunately, this applied
only to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. State-funded terrorist programssuch as
Hamas, Hezbollah, and Mossadwere unaffected. Nations that support
groups that are widely linked to terrorism, such as Iran, are not held
accountable specifically for these actions. To this date, the UN still does not
have a clear definition of terrorism, and they have no plans to pursue one.

Nuclear Proliferation

At the creation of the UN in 1945, the United States was the only nation in
the world to own and test nuclear weapons. In 1970, the nuclear non-
proliferation treaty was signed by 190 nations, including five nations that
admitted to owning nuclear weapons: France, England, Russia, China, and
the US.

Despite this treaty, nuclear stockpiles remain high, and numerous nations
continue to develop these devastating weapons, including North Korea,
Israel, Pakistan, and India. The failure of the non-proliferation treaty details
the ineffectiveness of the United Nations, and their inability to enforce crucial
rules and regulations on offending nations.

Sri Lanka

The small island nation of Sri Lanka experienced a bloody civil war lasting
from 1983 to 2009, pitting the militant, separatist Tamil Tigers against
government forces. In the final months of the war, the opposing sides were
fighting in the heavily populated northeast coastline, a designated safe zone.

The fighting forced 196,000 people to flee, and trapped over 50,000 civilians.
Independent experts urged the Human Rights Council of the UN to
investigate claims of war crimes, and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
acknowledged being appalled by the situation, but the United Nations
made no attempts to intervene on behalf of the civilian population. From
January to April of 2009, over 6,500 civilians were killed in this so-called
safe-zone.
 7

Child Sex Abuse Scandal

Many nations plead for support from the United Nations in times of
desperation and war. To the oppressed, the blue helmets of UN peacekeepers
represent stability and safety. Unfortunately, this was not the case in
numerous countries in the 1990s. Reports from Bosnia, Kosovo, Cambodia,
Haiti, and Mozambique revealed a shocking trend; areas with peacekeeping
forces saw a rapid rise in child prostitution.

Often, soldiers would reward the children with candy or small sums of
money, so they could claim the sexual relationship was prostitution rather
than rape. Senior officials in the United Nations refused to condemn the
peacekeepers, as they feared this public shaming would discourage nations
from joining peacekeeping forces.

Veto Power

The United Nations Security Council consists of fifteen nations, five of which
are permanent: France, Russia, China, the United States, and the United
Kingdom. The other ten nations are elected to serve two-year terms. The five
permanent members enjoy the luxury of veto power; when a permanent
member vetoes a vote, the Council resolution cannot be adopted, regardless
of international support. Even if the other fourteen nations vote yes, a single
veto will beat this overwhelming show of support.

The most recent use of the veto was by China and Russia, on July 19th, 2012.
The Security Council attempted to evoke chapter VII sanctions from the
United Nations Charter to intervene and prevent genocide in Syria. But the
vetoes by China and Russia halted any international intervention. Since the
Syrian Civil War began, an estimated 60,000 civilians have been killed, with
thousands more displaced.

5
 Srebrenica Massacre

This 1995 Bosnian War massacre was the single worst act of mass murder on
European soil since World War II. After an ethnic cleansing campaign led by
the Serbs targeted the Bosniaks, a largely Muslim community, the United
Nations designated Srebrenica a safe-zone in 1993. Militarized units in the
zone were forced to disarm, and a peacekeeping force was put in place,
consisting of six hundred Dutch soldiers. The Serbs then surrounded the
safe-zone with tanks, soldiers, and artillery pieces.

With the zone surrounded, supply lines were slow-moving at best. The UN
forces were running low on ammunition, fuel, and food, as the Serbs
continued to build an army around Srebrenica.

In July, Serbian forces invaded the area, forcing the small UN team back. As
many as 20,000 Bosniak refugees fled to the UN compound in Potocari,
seeking protection from the advancing Serbs. Despite the UN peacekeeping
force present, Serbian soldiers entered the camp, raping Bosniak women and
murdering freely while the Dutch peacekeepers did nothing. By July 18th,
7,800 Bosniaks were dead, due largely to an ill-equipped and unprepared UN
force.

Khmer Rouge

Ruling Cambodia from 1975 to 1979, the Khmer Rouge practiced an extreme
form of Communism, as dictated by their borderline-psychotic leader Pol Pot.
Any suspected enemies were executed, including professionals and
intellectuals. Ethnic Vietnamese, Ethnic Chinese, and Christians were
executed en masse.

In 1979, the Vietnamese army invaded Cambodia to oust the Khmer Rouge
and end the massacre. Pol Pot was forced in exile, and a new government
was put in place in Cambodia. Shockingly, the United Nations refused to
recognize this new government because it was backed by Vietnam, which
had recently ended a decade-long conflict with the United States. Until 1994,
the United Nations recognized the Khmer Rouge as the true government of
Cambodia, despite the fact that they had killed 2.5 million Cambodians,
amounting to 33% of their total population.
 3

The Cold War

The Cold War exemplifies the failure behind the United Nations Charter. With
the atrocities of World War II still fresh in their minds, the original founders
aimed to foster human rights for all citizens of the world. In 1948, the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was established, which was
binding to all nations, along with the Convention Against Genocide.

Almost immediately, the USSR disregarded these. Civic rights were virtually
non-existent. Stalin continued to rule with an iron fist, silencing all
opponents. In numerous Soviet Bloc nations, uprisings demanding the rights
established in the UDHR were crushed with force. With the United Nations
unwilling to act upon such atrocities, the words in the charter were rendered
meaningless for those who needed them the most.

Darfur

In 2003, the unstable nation of Sudan erupted in conflict, as various militia

groups criticized and attacked the government for oppressing non-Arabs.
Early in the war, rebel forces defeated the Sudanese military in more than
thirty battles. Seeing that defeat was imminent, the government funded the
Janjaweed, a group of Arab militants. By 2005, the Janjaweed were carrying
out attacks on populated villages using artillery and helicopters, prompting
condemnation by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. Despite this
condemnation, the UN did not enter Sudan, instead urging members of the
African Union to intervene.

As the African Union attempted an intervention, it became apparent that the

Sudanese military was destroying civilian populations. Reports emerged
revealing that Sudanese military planes were painted white, to resemble UN
humanitarian aircraft, only to drop bombs on villages. It was not until 2006
that 200 UN soldiers were dispatched to the area. Despite their limited
presence, fighting continued until 2010. In seven years, an estimated
300,000 Sudanese civilians were killed.
 1

Rwanda

The Rwandan genocide of 1994 details the gross inability of the United
Nations to carry out its sworn duty to maintain peace and security. Following
the Rwandan Civil War in the early 1990s, tensions between two ethnic
groups, the Hutu and the Tutsis, were at a dangerous high. In 1993, UN
peacekeeping forces entered the nation, attempted to secure the capital and
enable humanitarian aid. The peacekeeping forces were not authorized to
use military maneuvers to achieve these goals.

In January of 1994, a cable was sent from the Canadian Force Commander to
the UN headquarters detailing the imminent threat of genocide by Hutu
mobs on Tutsi minorities. The Security Council never received the cable, and
the notice was largely ignored. Following the loss of eighteen American
servicemen in the Battle of Mogadishu, the United States was largely
unwilling to help in any intervention.

Most shocking in this series of events is the abandonment of a school by

Belgian peacekeepers after ten soldiers were murdered. Thousands had
flocked to the school for UN protection, and roaming gangs of Hutu
supporters killed nearly all of them. Close to one million Rwandans were
killed in the genocide, amounting to twenty percent of the population.

t costs $7.87 billion a year to deploy around 120,000 United Nations

peacekeepers to protect civilians from direct harm and support rebuilding of
state institutions, facilitation of humanitarian aid, implementation of peace
agreements, and more. Peacekeepers are deployed in greater numbers and
in response to more complex conflict situations than ever before. Yet many of
their missions are failing to meet objectives.

The UN Peacekeeping Defence Ministerial held on September 8 in the United

Kingdom sought to address some of these challenges. As a follow-up to last
years historic Leaders Summit on Peacekeeping, co-hosted by US President
Barack Obama, the meeting brought together representatives of around 70
UN member states. It is thus indicative of widespread international
support and momentum behind improving peacekeeping and making it fit for
purpose in the 21st century.
Persistent capacity gaps mean that peacekeeping mandates cannot meet the
high expectations placed upon them. The UN mission in South Sudan
has failed to protect the thousands of civilians who have sought refuge inside
and adjacent to its bases. In Mali, the mission is struggling to protect itself
from extremist attacks, let alone provide a safe and secure environment for
civilians and others working to assist them. Efforts to stabilize countries such
as the Democratic Republic of the Congo rely on bargains with governments
that can undermine the impartiality of the UN and leave peacekeepers
susceptible to the whims of unpalatable leaders. The world bodys reputation
is also being eroded by instances of sexual exploitation and other
malfeasance.

The recent UK gathering appears to have produced some laudable

achievements in addressing these issues. A total of 31 countries made new
pledges with a significant portion of these earmarked for rapid deployment,
and vital commitments were made for much-needed mission enablers
assets such as intelligence gathering capacities, engineering units, field
hospitals, and strategic air capabilities.

The meeting culminated with a blueprint for improving peace operations

based on three Ps of better planning, additional pledges, and improving
performance, which should all help peace operations become more fit for
contemporary purposes. Yet the meeting also showed that peacekeeping
policy continues to skirt over several important issues.

The majority of commitments from the recent meeting constitute technical

treatments for the symptoms of under-performance rather than political
responses to its causes. They fail to sufficiently take into account key
findings of last years High-Level Independent Panel on Peace Operations
report and recent academic research highlighting the primacy of politics in
enabling effective missions. As former UN Under-Secretary-General for
Peacekeeping Jean-Marie Guhenno has argued, there can be no exclusively
military solutions to the conflicts that peace operations are sent to address.
Peacekeeping must be deployed in support of a political strategy, not as a
substitute for one.

Yet there is little understanding about what political planning needs to look
like among UN member states, with the focus instead falling on military and
technical planning for clear and sequenced mandates. There is no
clarification on who is responsible for ensuring the primacy of politics or
where it fits into the reform agenda of work going forward.

Peacekeeping also remains a highly militarized affair. While many civilian

experts attended the UK meeting, this was primarily a gathering of ministers
and chiefs of defense. This portrays a peace operations system where
decision-making remains in the hands of defense personnel. While this might
be perfectly logical when it comes to dealing with troop contributions and
military hardware, it makes little sense regarding other vital civilian
components or, more importantly, when crafting the political strategies that
underpin peace operations themselves.

Peace operations should not be thought of as a panacea for responding to all

conflict. The consequences of attempting to fit a square peg in a round hole
may be severe. Where there is no peace to keep, the UN Security Council
may need to consider enforcement action and stabilization operations in
order to protect civilians and prevent the escalation of violence. However, to
do this under the banner of peacekeeping may potentially jeopardize its
established principles, lead to major troop-contributing countries stepping
back from their roles, and possibly undermine the viability of the whole
enterprise. Some have argued that it may therefore be necessary to develop
another modalitywith associated doctrine and frameworksfor executing
the robust stabilization operations increasingly required.

In the meantime, UN peacekeeping must continue to muddle through. The

UK meeting gives cause for hope that there are tangible efforts underway to
close the contribution and capabilities gap plaguing current missions. Doing
better with more sounds like a better proposition than doing more with
less, which was the mantra of the previous decade of austerity-shaped
peacekeeping. However, what is urgently required is for member states to
debate and negotiate what UN peacekeeping should look like in the
21st century. Without crucial structural reforms, explicit political strategies,
and conceptual clarity, it will struggle in the face of enormous challenges and
is likely to lose further legitimacy.

Peacekeeping operations have become one of the most important tools for
the United Nations to meet the challenges against threats to international
peace and security in the 21st century. The Republic of Korea believes that
Peacekeeping mandates should be clear and achievable, and that a
mechanism for close consultations with troop-contributing countries should
be prepared and implemented.
As an important contributor of troops and of the UN peacekeeping budget,
the Republic of Korea will actively participate in a wide variety of related
discussions in the UN, including the Security Council and the Special
Committee on Peacekeeping Operations. As a responsible member of the
international community, the Republic of Korea has actively participated in
UN Peacekeeping Operations through the dispatch of infantry troops and by
supporting other contingents, such as medical and engineering units. With
638 troops deployed in seven missions, including the deployment of 317
troops to UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), and 293 troops to UN Mission
 in the Republic of South Sudan (UNMISS), Korea ranks 40th in the number of
PKO troops dispatched as of July 2015.
The level of Koreas participation in PKO is a reflection of the governments
willingness to contribute to world peace and security, thus enhancing its
status in the international community while simultaneously making the world
a safer place.
ROK-UN Relations

The Republic of Korea was established in 1948 and its government was
recognized by the United Nations through the General Assembly Resolution
195. The United Nations played a key role in the birth of the Republic of
Korea through such missions as monitoring the first general election and
other reconstruction programs.

When the Korean War broke out in June 1950, the United Nations intervened,
under Security Council Resolution 82, by sending armed forces to repel the
Communists' aggression. It was the first undertaking of its kind in the history
of the United Nations. Now, almost 50 years after the Korean armistice, a UN
command is still present on the Korean Peninsula.

Since the armistice of 1953, the Korean issue had been one of the most
controversial subjects of debate between the western and pro-Soviet blocks
at the UN. Applications by the Republic of Korea to become a member of the
UN were blocked. It was only in 1991 that both the ROK and the DPRK were
simultaneously admitted to the UN as the Cold War structure of global
politics receded.

Since its admission to the UN, the ROK has made significant contributions to
the work of the UN through peacekeeping operations, development and the
promotion of human rights. In particular, the United Nations recognized the
ROK's efforts toward peace and reconciliation during the Millennium Summit
of the UN, held in New York in early September 2000, through the adoption
by the Co-Chairpersons of the Summit of a special statement welcoming the
inter-Korean summit and encouraging its follow-up measures. On October 31,
2000 the General Assembly adopted a resolution entitled "Peace, Security
and Unification on the Korean Peninsula," co-sponsored by 157 nations,
including both Koreas. The Republic of Korea remains firm in its goal of
establishing permanent peace on the peninsula and contributing to the
stability and prosperity of the region and beyond.
International Peace and Security
The membership of the ROK to the Security Council in 1996-1997 has
provided us with a renewed motivation to take on a more proactive role for
the promotion of international peace and security. During its membership,
the ROK focused on upgrading the Council's transparency, protecting
 humanitarian assistance to refugees and others, and enhancing the Council's
capacity for resolving regional conflicts. During its presidency, the ROK
initiated an open debate on the protection for humanitarian assistance to
refugees and others in conflict situations, adopted four resolutions(1170-
1110), and issued eight presidential statements(S/PRST/1997/25-32).

The Republic of Korea was elected as a non-permanent member of the UN

Security Council for the 2013-2014 term at the 67th session of the UN
General Assembly on October 18, 2012. Serving as a non-permanent
member of the UN Secirity Council for the 2013-2014 term, the Republic of
Korea will make every effort to contribute in meaningful ways to the
maintenance of internaional peace and security.
Disarmament and Non-proliferation Issues
The Republic of Korea has actively participated in international disarmament
and non-proliferation efforts and multilateral export control. The Korean
government has acceded and faithfully complied with all major international
instruments, such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty(NPT), the Chemical
Weapons Convention(CWC), the Biological Weapons Convention(BWC) and
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty(CTBT). The Korean government is of the
view that the international community should continue to make efforts to
develop appropriate responses to ensure universal adherence to and full
compliance with all agreements related to eliminating weapons of mass
destruction in a more vigorous and comprehensive manner.
Human Rights
The Republic of Korea believes that international cooperation for the
promotion of human rights and democracy should be strengthened. It has
already ratified the core international human rights conventions and has
signed newly established human rights instruments. Major human rights
instruments that were signed or ratified by the ROK are as follows:
o The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights
o The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
o The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination
o The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women
o The Convention on the Rights of the Child and Two Optional
Protocols
o The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment
o The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Korean Financial Contribution to the UN

Budgetary and financial situation of the organizations of the United

Nations system (A/65/187, A/67/215, A/69/305, A/71/583) (* The data
 shall be updated following the statistical report presented by the
Secretary-General at the 73rd session of the General Assembly)
International peace and security
International peace and security is one of the three pillars of the United
Nations, alongside development and human rights. There are ongoing
conflicts in many regions in the world, and the UNs role in maintaining
peace and security is ever more relevant and critical. Secretary-General
Antnio Guterres has declared 2017 a year of peace and stated that conflict
prevention should not merely be a priority, but the priority. Thus, the UN is
expected to play a more active role in the international peace and security
arena.
The Republic of Korea has actively participated in the UNs peace and
security activities to contribute to promoting international peace. Since
becoming a member of the UN in 1991, the Republic of Korea has been a
non-permanent member of the Security Council - the main organ entrusted
with the task of maintaining international peace and security - twice within
the brief 26-year period: 1996-1997 and 2013-2014. Furthermore, it has
increased its efforts in the areas of peacekeeping and conflict prevention.
H.E. Ambassador Cho Tae-yul, the Permanent Representative of the
Permanent Mission of the Republic of Korea to the United Nations, has been
elected as the Chair of the Peacebuilding Commissions Organizational
Committee for the year 2017, and the Republic of Korea has been at the
forefront in leading efforts for conflict prevention and sustaining peace by
engaging with various UN bodies and stakeholders and by playing a bridge-
building role.
* Established in 2005 by the General Assembly and the Security Council,
the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) has been mandated to play an
advisory role for the relevant actors in post-conflict peacebuilding efforts.
More recently in 2016, the PBCs role increased and was strengthened
through the adoption of the joint General Assembly/Security Council
resolution on sustaining peace, mandating the UN to play a more active
role not just in post-conflict situations, but also in all stages of conflict.
The Republic of Korea will continue to be an active participant of the UNs
international peace and security activities and contribute as a responsible
middle power in line with our international status.

The Republic of Korea upholds human rights as one of its core foreign policy
principles and has actively participated in the international communitys
efforts to promote and protect human rights around the world. As a country
that has achieved economic development, democratization, and
improvement in human rights within a span of one generation, the Republic
of Korea aims to contribute to the international human rights agenda based
on its national development experience.
Currently, Korea is a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council
and the Commission on the Status of Women, as well as being a State Party
to seven core international human rights treaties,* actively participating in
and contributing to human rights discussions and activities in the UN.
*International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International
Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, International Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Convention on the
Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Convention
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, Convention on the Rights of the Child, Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities
In its UN human rights activities, the Republic of Korea attaches special
importance in promoting and protecting human rights of vulnerable groups
who could potentially be left behind in the national development process,
such as persons with disabilities and women and girls. Accordingly, the
Republic of Korea has co-sponsored and taken part in the drafting of human
rights resolutions focused on those vulnerable groups. The Republic of Korea
has also contributed to mainstreaming human rights in the UN system,
including supporting the Human Rights Up Front Initiative and establishing
the Accessibility Centres at UN offices in New York and Geneva for persons
with disabilities.
Additionally, the Republic of Korea approaches country-specific human rights
initiatives in the UN from the standpoint of universal protection and
promotion of human rights, and actively participates in related discussions
and the Universal Period Review process at the Human Rights Council. The
Republic of Korea pays particular attention to the human rights situation in
the DPRK, sharing the increasing concerns of the international community
about the systematic, widespread, and gross human rights violations in the
country. The Republic of Korea exerts every effort in working with the
international community to substantially improve the human rights situation
in the DPRK.

Humanitarian Assistance
The Republic of Koreas humanitarian assistance has aimed at saving lives
and protecting the basic dignity and human rights of those affected by
poverty, disease, natural and man-made disasters, and armed conflict, as a
responsible member of the international community. The Korean
Government has been providing humanitarian assistance in compliance
with the humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and
independence, which were approved by UN resolutions. Although the
Republic of Koreas humanitarian assistance was focused on emergency
relief in the past, the Korean government is now expanding its contribution
to protracted and forgotten crises. To that end, the Republic of Korea has
been actively engaging with the Consolidated Appeal Process (CAP), which
is the strategic planning and resource mobilization mechanism jointly
prepared by the UN humanitarian agencies.
The Republic of Korea has been making great efforts to provide timely and
effective emergency relief for the affected country by establishing the
Policy Framework on Overseas Emergency Relief based on the Overseas
Emergency Relief Act in cases of large-scale disasters. In an effort to join
the fight against the Ebola outbreak, the Korean government dispatched
the Korea Disaster Relief Team (KDRT) to Sierra Leone in 2014 to treat Ebola
patients, which is considered as a new form of health diplomacy. In
addition, the KDRT responded to the aftermath of the earthquake in Nepal
in 2015 by carrying out search and rescue operations as well as medical
activities. In particular, Korea showed its emergency relief capabilities to
the international community when, in 2016, in the accreditation
administered by the INSARAG (International Search and Rescue Advisory
Group), the KDRT was classified in the highest attainable grade as a Heavy
Team.

The government of the Republic of Korea provides humanitarian assistance

to around 40 overseas disasters every year. In 2016, Korea provided 60
million USD worth of humanitarian assistance to many humanitarian crises,
including Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, which are classified as the most severe
and large-scale crises by the United Nations. In an effort to partake the joint
endeavor to overcome the worst refugee crisis, on record the government
of the Republic of Korea greatly expanded its assistance for refugees from
3.5 million USD in 2012 to 50 million USD in 2016. In addition, the Republic
of Korea made an annual contribution of 4 million USD to the Central
Emergency Response Fund managed by OCHA in order to help with rapid
emergency relief operations and humanitarian response to underfunded
emergencies and other forgotten crises.

Nuclear Security
The Republic of Korea hosted the 2012 Seoul Nuclear Security Summit on
26-27 March 2012, where participating leaders all acknowledged the
seriousness of the threat of nuclear terrorism and exchanged views on
national measures and ways of bringing international cooperation to
address the threat. On 5 December 2016, Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se
chaired the second International Conference on Nuclear Security of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which began in Vienna, Austria,
to discuss ways in which the international community can work together to
prevent terrorist attacks using nuclear and radioactive materials. In the
lead-up to the conference, the Republic of Korea, in its capacity as Chair,
took an important leading role in preparing the events outcome document
and in adopting the ministerial declaration by consensus. The ministerial
declaration affirmed the IAEAs pivotal role in nuclear security and
expressed the high-level commitment to beef up nuclear security and set
the direction of future activities to that end.

Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT)

The international community is exerting efforts to strengthen the global
nonproliferation regime, especially through the Nuclear Non-proliferation
Treaty (NPT), in response to the growing threat of the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The 2010 NPT Review Conference was
particularly significant as it adopted a final document ten years after the
2000 Review Conference. The document provides specific measures to
overcome diverse challenges facing the NPT and to strengthen the nuclear
nonproliferation regime. The government of the Republic of Korea played an
active role as Vice-President in leading efforts to adopt the final document,
reaffirming the international communitys concerted efforts to urge the
Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) to abandon its nuclear
program with respect to the Joint Statement on North Korea's Nuclear
Programs (19 September 2005) and related UN Security Council resolutions.
At the 2015 NPT Review Conference, which was held from 27 April to 22
May in New York, States Parties examined the implementation of the
Treatys provisions since 2010. However, despite intensive negotiations, the
States Parties could not reach a consensus on a Final Document. In
preparation for the 2020 NPT Review Conference, which will mark the 50th
anniversary of the entry into force of the Treaty, the Republic of Korea
stands ready to actively participate in the Preparatory Committees and the
Review Conference to help strengthen the international communitys
consensus on the North Korean nuclear issue and to contribute to
international disarmament and non-proliferation efforts.

North Korean Nuclear Issue / Iranian Nuclear Issue

The Republic of Korea has responded promptly and proactively to the
DPRKs nuclear and missile programs, which are posing severe threats to
the international nonproliferation regime. In particular, in response to the
fourth and the fifth North Korean nuclear tests on 6 January 2016 and 9
September 2016, as well as DPRKs various ballistic missiles launches, the
Republic of Korea actively participated in consultations with members of
the Security Council, which led to the adoption of the Security Council
sanctions resolutions against DPRK, including resolutions 2270(2016),
2321(2016), 2356(2017), and 2371(2017). The government of the Republic
of Korea will work closely with other UN member states to thoroughly and
completely implement the Security Council resolutions 2270 (2016) and
2321 (2016) as well as other relevant resolutions.
With regard to the Iranian nuclear issue, a momentous agreement on the
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was reached between the P5+1
countries (United States, Russia, China, United Kingdom, France, and
Germany) and Iran in Vienna on 14 July 2015. The Republic of Korea hopes
that the measures agreed under the JCPOA will be faithfully implemented,
thereby resolving the international communitys concerns over Irans
nuclear program and contributing to enhancing peace and stability in the
region and beyond.

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)

The Republic of Korea is a ratifying state to the Comprehensive Nuclear-
Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), which bans nuclear tests everywhereon the
Earths surface, in the atmosphere, underwater, and underground. The
Republic of Korea has actively participated in the worlds efforts to bringing
an early entry into force of the Treaty. On 25 26 June 2015, the Republic of
Korea hosted the CTBT Group of Eminent Persons (GEM) Meeting in Seoul.
This was particularly meaningful considering the year of 2015 marked the
70th anniversary of the division of the Korean Peninsula and the 65th
anniversary of the Korean War. At the meeting, the GEM members adopted
the Seoul Declaration, which called for an early entry into force of the
CTBT and urged North Korea to sign and ratify the Treaty and refrain from
undertaking any further nuclear tests. During the Seventy-first session of
the UN General Assembly, the Republic of Korea joined in releasing the Joint
Ministerial Statement on the Comprehensive CTBT, which was released on
21 September 2016 in New York (A/71/736).

Activities in the Field of Disarmament and Nonproliferation, and

Multilateral Export Countrols
As the world's fifth largest nuclear energy country and an exporter of
nuclear power reactors, the Republic of Korea is committed to a responsible
and peaceful use of nuclear energy. We continue to participate more
actively in the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism (GICNT)
activities to strengthen nuclear security and our national capacity to
counter terrorism.
There are five international export control regimes: the Wassenaar
Arrangement (WA), Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), Zangger Committee
(ZC), the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), and Australia Group
(AG). The Republic of Korea has actively participated in such field by joining
all of the afore-mentioned five regimes. Furthermore, the government of
the Republic of Korea will take a leading role in the nonproliferation regimes
on WMDs by assuming the Chairmanship of the NSG and the MTCR in the
2016-2017 period, and by joining the worlds efforts to resolve the DPRKs
nuclear issues.
Disarmament and Nonproliferation Activities and Achievements
within the United Nations
The bi-annual resolution submitted by the government of the Republic of
Korea, in cooperation with Australia since 2008, titled Preventing and
Combating Illicit Brokering Activities, was re-adopted by an overwhelming
majority of Member States at the 71st UN General Assemblys First
Committee in 2016. This resolution underlined the necessity of
international cooperation to prevent proliferation of WMD and conventional
weapons through illicit brokering, while fostering international collaboration
to prevent illicit trade of nuclear materials.
From January 2013 to December 2014, the Republic of Korea successfully
chaired the UN Security Council 1540 Committee. The UN Security Council
resolution 1540 (2004), which was unanimously adopted in April 2004
under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, obliges all States to prevent the
proliferation of WMD to non-State actors, such as terrorists. The Security
Councils 1540 Committee, established pursuant to this resolution, monitors
and facilitates the implementation of the obligations outlined under the
resolution 1540, provides assistance to States upon their request, and
works to strengthen coordination among diverse international
nonproliferation initiatives. As the Chair of the 1540 Committee, the
Republic of Korea steered efforts of the global community to make the
world safer by strengthening the global nonproliferation regime. The
government of the Republic of Korea remains committed to strengthening
the implementation mechanism of the Security Council resolutions 1540
(2004) and 2325 (2016), by enhancing export control and better
responding to the possibility of WMD proliferation by non-State actors.
The government of the Republic of Korea co-hosts the ROK-UN Joint
Conference on Disarmament and Nonproliferation every year with the UN
Office for Disarmament Affairs (ODA). The 15th Conference was held in
November 2016 in Jeju, Republic of Korea, with the participation of many
disarmament and non-proliferation experts, including the High
Representative for Disarmament Affairs United Nations. At the Conference,
participants exchanged views on a wide range of topics, including the
challenges in regional security, space security, and nuclear security.

International Counter-terrorism Cooperation

Terrorism continues to pose a serious threat to international peace and
security, human rights, and social and economic development.
In order to respond to the threats of terrorism, the international
community's counter-terrorism efforts have been focusing on enhancing the
international law enforcement capacity, strengthening the system for
preventing the spread of WMDs, prohibiting the financing of terrorists, and
addressing conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism, strengthening
 efforts for peaceful resolution of conflicts, promoting the rule of law,
promoting of human rights, good governance and tolerance.
The Republic of Korea firmly holds the position that terrorism cannot be
tolerated or justified under any circumstances and it will not compromise or
surrender to the threats of terrorism. To effectively counter terrorist threats,
the Republic of Korea is striving to strengthen its counter-terrorism capacity
at the domestic level and is actively participating in joint efforts by the
international community, including the UN, AEAN Regional Forum (ARF),
and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).

The United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR) was

established by United Nations Security Council Resolution 872 on 5 October
1993.[1] It was intended to assist in the implementation of the Arusha
Accords, signed August 4, 1993, which was meant to end the Rwandan Civil
War.[2] The mission lasted from October 1993 to March 1996.[2] Its activities
were meant to aid the peace process between the Hutu-
dominated Rwandese government and the Tutsi-dominated rebel Rwandan
Patriotic Front (RPF). The UNAMIR has received much attention for its role, or
lack thereof due to the limitations of its rules of engagement, in the Rwandan
Genocide and outbreak of fighting. Its mandate extended past the RPF
overthrow of the government and into the Great Lakes refugee crisis. The
mission is thus regarded as a major failure.[3]

Contents

Background[edit]
In October 1990 the Rwandan Civil War began when the Rwandan Patriotic
Front rebel group invaded across Uganda's southern border into northern
Rwanda. The RPF was composed of over 4000 soldiers, most the sons
of Tutsi refugees who had fled ethnic purges in Rwanda between 1959 and
1963. It portrayed itself as a democratic, multi-ethnic movement and
demanded an end to ethnic discrimination, to economic looting of the
country by government elites and a stop to the security situation that
continued to generate refugees. It was supported by the Ugandan
government of Yoweri Museveni, who had come to power in the Ugandan
Bush War with significant support from the Rwandan refugees in the country.
However, the Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR) was saved by reinforcements
from France and Zaire, who backed the government of Rwandan
President Juvnal Habyarimana, who had been in power since 1973.
The French intervention of two parachute companies, explained as an
attempt to protect its own nationals, actually blocked the RPF advance on
the capital Kigali. In contrast, the government of Belgium, the former colonial
power, cut all support to the Habyarimana regime, which viewed the action
as abandonment. Thwarted by the French, the RPF suffered a humiliating
retreat back into the Virunga Mountains along the border. After the
demoralizing death of Major-General Fred Rwigyema, the collapse of the RPF
was prevented through the leadership of Paul Kagame.
The RPF thus managed to retain control of a sliver of land in the north, from
which it continued to launch raids.[4] Comparing the RPF and FAR as he saw
them in 1993, CanadianLieutenant-General Romo Dallaire noted that the
rebels "had won all recent contests because of their superior leadership,
training, experience, frugality, mobility. Discipline and morale."[5]
However, the RPF invasion, which displaced approximately 600,000 people
into crowded internally displaced person camps, also radicalized the Hutu
populace. The Tutsi civilians in Rwanda, roughly 14% of the population, were
labeled ibyitso ("accomplices") or inyenzni ("cockroaches"), who were
accused of secretly aiding the RPF invaders.[6] Anti-Tutsi propaganda was
spread through the publication Kangura, a forerunner to the Radio Tlvision
Libre des Mille Collines, which was created immediately after the invasion.
The first plans for mass murder of Tutsi were also developed toward the end
of 1990, mostly in a series of secret meetings in Gisenyi prefecture of
the Akazu, a network of associates based around Agathe Habyarimana, the
First Lady.[7]
A number of ceasefire agreements were signed by the RPF and government,
including one signed on 22 July 1992 in Arusha, Tanzania that resulted in
the Organization of African Unity (OAU) establishing a 50-member Neutral
Military Observer Group (NMOG I) led by Nigerian General Ekundayo
Opaleye.[8] The negotiations for a peace settlement continued in Arusha,
interrupted by a massive RPF offensive in early February 1993. Rwanda
continued to allege Ugandan support for the RPF, which both the RPF and
Uganda duly denied, but resulting in both countries sending letters to
President of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) requesting that
military observers be deployed along the border to verify that military
supplies were not crossing.
This resulted in the United Nations Observer Mission Uganda-
Rwanda (UNOMUR) being approved by the UNSC on 22 June 1993 to deploy
along the Ugandan side of the border.[9]Seven days later, UN Secretary-
General Boutros Boutros-Ghali announced that Brigadier-General Dallaire
was to be appointed the Chief Military Observer for UNOMUR, which reached
its authorized strength of 81 observers by September. NMOG I was deployed
inside Rwanda.[10]
In the meantime, talks in Arusha had reconvened on 16 March 1993,
resulting in the signing of the Arusha Accords, a comprehensive agreement
to create a power-sharing government, on the fourth of August. Both the RPF
and Rwandan government requested UN assistance in implementing the
agreement. In early August, NMOG I was replaced by NMOG II, consisting of
about 130 members, in preparation for a UN-led peacekeeping force.[11]
Establishment[edit]
Mandate[edit]

UNAMIR mandate was :"(a) To contribute to the security of the city of Kigali
inter alia with in a weapons-secure area established by the parties in and
around the city; (b) To monitor observance of the cease-fire agreement,
which calls for the establishment of cantonment and assembly zones and the
demarcation of the new demilitarized zone and other demilitarization
procedures; (c) To monitor the security situation during the final period of the
transitional governments mandate, leading up to the elections;(d) To assist
with mine clearance, primarily through training programmes;(e) To
investigate at the request of the parties or on its own initiative instances of
alleged non-compliance with the provisions of the Arusha Peace Agreement
relating to the integration of the armed forces, and pursue any such
instances with the parties responsible and report thereon as appropriate to
the Secretary-General; (f) To monitor the process of repatriation of Rwandese
refugees and resettlement of displaced persons to verify that it is carried out
in a safe and orderly manner; (g) To assist in the coordination
of humanitarian assistance activities in conjunction with relief operations; (h)
To investigate and report on incidents regarding the activities of
the gendarmerie and police.[1]:paragraph3 "[12] Its authorised strength was 2,500
personnel, but it took some five months of piecemeal commitments for the
mission to reach this level.
On April 5, 1994, the UN voted to extend the mandate of UNAMIR to 29 July
1994, after expressing "deep concern at the delay in the establishment of
the broad-based transitional Government and the Transitional National
Assembly" and "concern at the deterioration in security in the country,
particularly in Kigali."[2]
on 17 May 1994 Security council expanded UNAMIRs mandate to include
following additional responsibilities : "(a) To contribute to the security and
protection of displaced persons, refugees and civilians at risk in Rwanda,
including through the establishment and maintenance, where feasible,
of secure humanitarian areas; (b) To provide security and support for
the distribution of relief supplies and humanitarian relief
operations".[13]:paragraph3
Composition[edit]

The Special Representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG) or head of the

mission, was Jacques-Roger Booh-Booh of Cameroon. At the beginning of
July, 1994, Jacques-Roger Booh-Booh was replaced by Shaharyar
Khan of Pakistan. The military head, and Force Commander
was Canadian Brigadier-General (promoted Major-General during the
mission) Romo Dallaire. In August 1994, General Romo Dallaire, suffering
from severe stress, was replaced as Force Commander by Major-General Guy
Tousignant, also from Canada. In December 1995, Tousignant was replaced
by Brigadier General Shiva Kumar from India.
Troop contributing countries were Belgium, Bangladesh, Ghana, and Tunisia.
Around 400 of the troops in this early part of the mission
were Belgian soldiers, despite the fact that Rwanda had been a Belgian
colony, and normally the UN bans the former colonial power from serving in
such peace-keeping roles.
Squabbling between interested parties delayed the UNAMIR goal of assisting
the formation of the transitional government following the inauguration of
President Habyarimana on January 5, 1994. The violent clashes that followed,
including the assassinations of two major political leaders and the ambush of
a UNAMIR-led convoy of RPF forces led the UNAMIR forces to move to a more
defensive footing. UNAMIR thus contributed support to the military and
civilian authorities in Rwanda, while the UN continued to place pressure on
Habyarimana and the RPF to return to the ideas set forth in the Accords.

Operations before the genocide[edit]

The United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR) had been in
Rwanda since October 1993,[14] with a mandate to oversee the
implementation of the Arusha Accords.[15] UNAMIR commander Romo
Dallaire learned of the Hutu Power movement during the early phase of
deployment;[16] in January 1994, a government informant alerted Dallaire to a
group who were rapidly arming militias and planning mass extermination of
Tutsi, and led UNAMIR to a secret arms cache.[17] Dallaire sent a cable to the
UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) in New York, requesting
permission to raid the weapons caches;[18] the UN refused Dallaire's request
to raid the arms, and rebuked him for exceeding his mandate.[16] Dallaire's
cable also informed the DPKO of the information concerning the genocide; it
said: "Since UNAMIR mandate [the informant] has been ordered to register
all Tutsi in Kigali. He suspects it is for their extermination. Example he gave
was that in 20 minutes his personnel could kill up to 1000 Tutsis."[19] Dallaire
received little support from the administrative head of UNAMIR,
Cameroonian Jacques-Roger Booh-Booh; the RPF accused Booh-Booh of
partiality towards President Habyarimana and the Hutu elite.[20] UNAMIR
operated with very limited resources,[21] and its efforts to install the
transitional government were obstructed by President Habyarimana and the
hardliners throughout early 1994.[22] By April, the Security Council threatened
to terminate UNAMIR's mandate if it did not make progress.[23]

Genocide[edit]
On April 6, 1994, a plane carrying President Habyarimana and
President Cyprien Ntaryamira of Burundi was shot down near Kigali. What
followed was the collapse of the unstable peace in Rwanda and the Rwandan
Genocide, estimated to have claimed between 800,000 and 1,017,100 Tutsi
and Hutu victims over 100 days.
Among the first targets of the genocide were Prime Minister Agathe
Uwilingiyimana and 10 Belgian members of 2nd Commando Battalion,
the Paracommando Regiment operating as part of UNAMIR. These troops
were murdered after handing over their weapons to Rwandan government
troops. They were advised to do so by their battalion commander who was
unclear on the legal issues with authorising them to defend themselves,
even though they had already been under fire for approximately two hours.
Following the death of Habyarimana, Romo Dallaire liaised repeatedly with
both the Crisis Committee and the RPF, in an attempt to re-establish peace.
[24]
He addressed the government forces during the night of 6 April,
expressing regret at Habyarimana's death but urging them to restrain the
killings that had commenced;[25] he also urged Kagame not to resume the
civil war, to avoid esacalating the violence and to give UNAMIR a chance to
rein in the killings.[26] Neither side was interested in a ceasefire, the
government because it was controlled by the genocidaires, and the RPF
because it considered it necessary to fight to stop the killings.
[27]
UNAMIR's Chapter VI mandate rendered it powerless to intervene
militarily,[28] and most of its Rwandan staff were killed in the early days of the
genocide, severely limiting its ability to operate.[27] UNAMIR was therefore
largely reduced to a bystander role, and Dallaire later labelled it a
"failure."[29] Its most significant contribution was to provide refuge for
thousands of Tutsi and moderate Hutu at its headquarters in Amahoro
Stadium, as well as other secure UN sites.[30] UNAMIR also assisted with the
evacuation of foreign nationals; a group of Belgian soldiers, who had been
sheltering 2,000 Rwandans at the cole Technique Officielle, were ordered to
abandon their station to assist in the evacuation. After the Belgians left, Hutu
militants entered and massacred everyone inside.[31]
On 12 April, the Belgian government, which was one of the largest troop
contributors to UNAMIR,[32] and had lost ten soldiers protecting Prime Minister
Uwilingiliyimana, announced that it was withdrawing. Belgium also favoured
a complete withdrawal of UNAMIR, and lobbied for this in the UN.[33] Dallaire
protested, arguing that the force should be strengthened and given a new
mandate to protect the thousands of refugees it was protecting,[34] but
the Security Council refused, telling Dallaire that UNAMIR would be
effectively withdrawn unless the belligerents agreed to a ceasefire by early
May.[35] According to Philip Gourevitch, the United States, having recently
suffered losses in the UN mission in Somalia, was particularly keen to "get
out of Rwanda" and "leave it to its fate."[36] New Zealand, which held the
rotating presidency of the Security Council, was the lone voice supporting
reinforcement,[37] and in late April, persuaded the council to postpone
UNAMIR's withdrawal.[38] despite continuing reluctance from the United
States and United Kingdom.[39]
Understaffed and abandoned, UNAMIR did the best it could with what forces
remained. As individuals and as a group, members of the UNAMIR forces did
manage to save the lives of thousands of Tutsis in and around Kigali and the
few areas of UN control. Lieutenant-General Dallaire requested the
immediate insertion of approximately 5,000 troops, but his request was
denied.
For the next six weeks, approximately, UNAMIR coordinated peace talks
between the Hutu government and the RPF to little avail. Eventually, on 17
May 1994, the UN finally conceded that "acts of genocide may have been
committed,"[40] and agreed to reinforcement, that would deliver nearly 5,500
troops and much needed personnel carriers and other equipment to UNAMIR,
which would be henceforth known as UNAMIR 2.[39] The new soldiers did not
start arriving until June,[41] and following the end of the genocide in July, the
role of UNAMIR 2 was largely confined to maintaining security and stability.
[42]
UNAMIR withdrew from Rwanda in 1996, following the withdrawal of
support by the RPF-led government.[42]
UNAMIR 2 and subsequent resolutions were still unclear on the right to use
force in stopping the genocide. In one of Romeo Dallaires parting cables, he
said that the [UN] force has been prevented from having a modicum of self-
respect and effectiveness on the ground. [43] Unfortunately, in the face of the
mayhem in Rwanda and this diplomatic watering down of UNAMIR's
mandate, many UN member states delayed contributing personnel for some
time, until the main wave of killings ceased.
In July 1994, the RPF swept into Kigali and ended the genocide that had
lasted 100 days, and RPF leader Paul Kagame (who became president
several years laterand still is today[44]but effectively controlled the
country from July 1994 through the present) reaffirmed his commitment to
the Arusha Accords.
Following the end of the main killings the challenges for UNAMIR (and the
many NGOs who arrived in the country) were to maintain the fragile peace,
stabilise the government and, most importantly, care for the nearly 4 million
displaced persons in camps within Rwanda, Zaire, Tanzania, Burundi and
Uganda. The massive camps around Lake Kivu in the north west of Rwanda
were holding about 1.2 million people and this was creating enormous
security, health and ecological problems.
After the late arrival of the much needed troop support, UNAMIR continued to
carry out its mandate to the best of its abilities. In 1996, however, with
assertion from the new Rwandese government that UNAMIR had failed in its
priority mission, the UN withdrew the UNAMIR mandate on March 8, 1996.
Despite the failure of UNAMIR in its main mission, its humanitarian services
during the 1994 genocide are recognized to this day as having saved the
lives of thousands or tens of thousands of Rwandan Tutsi and Hutu
moderates who would have otherwise been killed. However, the actions of
the UN in Rwanda (and particularly the Head of Peacekeeping Operations at
the time, Kofi Annan) have been used by some as examples of the over-
bureaucratic and dithering approach of the UN. (General Dallaire was
particularly critical of Annan's performance.)
Countries that contributed troops to UNAMIR throughout its existence were:
Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chad,
Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, Germany, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea
Bissau, Guyana, India, Jordan, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Netherlands, Niger,
Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Russia, Senegal, Slovakia, Spain,
Switzerland, Togo, Tunisia, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Casualties[edit]
27 members of UNAMIR - 22 soldiers, three military observers, one civilian
police and one local staff - lost their lives during the mission. The genocide
and the spectre of mission failure had profound effect on General Dallaire. On
his return to Canada he was diagnosed with acute Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD); he even attempted suicide. He was eventually released
from the Canadian army service on medical grounds. Lt General Dallaire
received the Aegis Trust Award (the first) for his acts of bravery. In 2004-
2005, he was awarded a fellowship at the Carr Center for Human Rights
Policy, Harvard University, where he was studying and writing about different
forms of conflict resolution. On 25 March 2005, he was appointed a Canadian
senator, representing Qubec as a member of the Liberal Party of Canada;
he serves on the committee for Human Rights. He also speaks publicly about
his experiences relating to genocide, PTSD and suicide. While General
Dallaire's issues have been the focus of much attention, particularly in
Canada, very little attention has been paid to the plight of the front line
soldiers of the Canadian Contingent to UNAMIR who suffered from a rash of
suicides, marital breakdowns and career ending diagnoses of PTSD following
their return from Rwanda.