It seems probable that UN military forces will increasingly be
called upon to intervene in conflict zones in order to protect civilian
populations. Their role and function need to be clarified and, for the
sake of greater efficiency, it may be necessary to separate certain of the
functions - 'protection' from 'mediation and enforcement' - to form two
distinct UN forces. At the same time, there needs to be a greater
investment in appropriate, specialised training in areas such as the
provision of humanitarian assistance, the application of international
legal protection instruments and the use of peace brokering skills.
Furthermore, the role of the UN military forces in upholding standards of
ethical and moral conduct should be made explicit.
The nature and character of conflicts around the world have changed dramatically since the Second World War. Whereas war used to be between recognised formal military structures, armed conflicts now spill over and take a heavy toll on civilians and their property. Combatants no longer observe the rules of war or the provisions of the Geneva Conventions. Rebel and paramilitary groups are often excessively armed (supplied by the very countries that attempt to broker peace between the warring factions), undisciplined and volatile, given to gross human rights violations; government forces in turn often retaliate by burning down whole villages and displacing large numbers of civilians. In the circumstances, it seems probable that the role of the UN military forces will become increasingly important in the coming years in active combat and conflict zones.
Is the UN military peacekeeping operation equipped to assume such responsibility?
There has been considerable civilian opposition to the 'blue berets'. Crowds cheered the withdrawal of the UN peacekeeping forces from Somalia; the UN peacekeeping forces in the Occupied Palestinian Israeli territories were often referred to pejoratively as 'United Nothings'; and, in Cambodia, the presence of UNTAC is directly cited as the cause for the proliferation of prostitution, especially child prostitution.
Is it that the forces whose mission is said to be peacekeeping anticipate their role as one of passive monitoring without any form of intervention? Surely passive monitoring is the role of the UN military observers and the EC monitors.
Or is it that the UN peacekeeping forces have not had their roles clearly defined? In general, the international community expects their role to be one of active participation and intervention in order to protect the civilian population, which is not how their roles have been designed.
Or is it that the forces are perceived to be partisan rather than
neutral? Neutrality is almost impossible in a civil conflict for one is
always perceived by both sides to be 'feeding the enemy'. In the former
Yugoslavia, the Serbs and the Croats were hostile towards the peacekeeping
forces whom they considered to be assisting the Muslims only, whereas the
Muslims alleged that the UN forces had free access to the brothels run by
the Serbs and consequently had refrained from reporting such human rights
violations. Under those circumstances, humanitarian neutrality appears to
be compromised.
The structure and function of UN forces for humanitarian
assistance
At present, all forms of assistance and intervention come under the
umbrella of the UN peacekeeping forces. This has been popularly
misunderstood and even politicians have been heard to comment: 'What peace
are they keeping? There is no peace.' I would propose that the forces be
restructured to form a UN Protection Force and a
UN Peace Promotion Force with the responsibility of
peace mediation and negotiation, peacemaking and peacebuilding.
The UN Protection Force should perform these functions:
The relationship between the UN military forces and the international agencies and NGOs in the former Yugoslavia was intended to be complementary but, in practice, at times there was friction on questions of 'ownership' of areas of operation. Some aspects of the role of the proposed UN Protection Force clearly overlap with the role of other international humanitarian agencies, particularly UNHCR. Where there is active hostility and conflict (ie a war zone), the UN Military Protection Force would be better trained and equipped to deal with the situation. At the same time, NGO personnel should be trained in negotiation skills; abductions, holdups, hijacking, holding of hostages and killings of NGO staff are not uncommon.
A military force is better able to cope with local hostile forces where safe passage of humanitarian convoys is denied and where routes are mined and impassable. UN military forces currently accompany international aid agency personnel and humanitarian aid convoys visiting high risk areas in Bosnia. It would be more cost effective, however, for the UN to have a properly trained military force with sole responsibility for these functions. If countries contributing the soldiers paid their salaries, while the UN undertook the other operational costs, it would be a cost sharing and saving exercise.
An army should also be able to deal with the needs of displaced persons in a war zone; the international aid agencies and NGOs should intervene and assist once the refugees or displaced persons are in a safe zone away from the conflict, or across the border in a neighbouring country. Active combat zones may be made even more hazardous because of the use of chemical or bacteriological weapons; an army is better able to deal with such challenges.
The UN Peace Promotion Force should broker peace in
areas of active conflict. Once cessation of hostilities has occurred and
an agreement negotiated, this body should actively seek to enforce it, not
merely monitor it, and ensure that no violations of the agreement occur.
Training
In these days of specialisation and skilled operation, the UN - under the umbrella of peacekeeping - assumes a multiplicity of roles for which many of its staff may be insufficiently trained. UN peacekeeping forces need to be more structured and coordinated and, in order to be more capable of reacting and responding efficiently in any humanitarian emergency, they need considerable training in certain areas.
If one of the main reasons for intervention is to prevent further
violations of human rights, intervening armies need to be fully aware of
the human rights declarations and the four Geneva Conventions and
Protocols. Many UNPROFOR soldiers in the former Yugoslavia knew little or
nothing of the Geneva Conventions. When asked, some had 'heard of them'
but did not know the details. Forces need to be trained in:
It is also crucial for the peacekeeping forces to be trained in gender awareness and concerns, sot that the many refugee and displaced women may be assisted and protected in an appropriate and sensitive way.
For some of the troops sent out, it may be their first experience of
active combat; a minimum period of service should be one of the criteria
for selection of soldiers.
Standards of ethical and moral conduct
It is common knowledge that wherever there are armies, some members will engage in undesirable activities, for example, selling drugs, equipment, fuel oil or arms, or engaging in prostitution. These, together with their perceived partisanship, has earned the UN peacekeeping forces a bad reputation. Sale of drugs, arms and equipment clearly is tantamount to theft; those apprehended are court-martialled. However, sanctions on prostitution and other sex crimes are not so clear.
The military often turn a blind eye to such activities but they have serious consequences. The use of rape and sexual violence against women and girls as a weapon of war is well-documented and denounced. The phenomenon is not new; it has been present since the time of the Crusades, when women and girls in conquered territory were regarded as fair game and a prize of victory. But the systematically planned and massively executed rape against women and girls in the former Yugoslavia is as reprehensible as sending civilians to the gas chambers of Dakow and Auschwitz. This act has been universally condemned as a crime against humanity.
However, acts of prostitution and sexual activity by the military in a zone of conflict - where women are forced to sell their bodies because of poverty and deprivation, fear for their safety, need of security, effort to free a loved one or for any other favour - have not been declared an offence but nevertheless should also be declared a crime against women and girls. The sexual activity of a soldier with a civilian under threat should be treated as a punishable crime through court-martial.1 Such a prohibition might also reduce the scale of the social problems relating to the number of illegitimate children left behind as the military forces move on. This value system needs to be incorporated into the training curriculum of soldiers.
A parallel may be drawn between these sexual crimes by soldiers and the
crime of custodial rape, where sexual favours are obtained by
law enforcement personnel or other authority figures, while a girl or
woman is in custody. Consent of the woman or girl to sexual
intercourse is irrelevant in these situations because she is placed in a
position where her life or liberty is in jeopardy. Custodial rape
is an offence, even if the woman or girl is compensated in the form of
release or reduced charges.
Rita Reddy is currently Project Officer for UNICEF, Bangkok, and
was formerly with UNHCR in Bosnia. The views expressed in the article do
not necessarily reflect that of any UN agency.
1 It is possible to distinguish these crimes from legitimate romantic liaisons that may be a prelude to a more permanent relationship.
April 1997