A salute to the UN peacekeeping forces

Today is the International Day of United Nations Peacekeepers; it is also the 75th anniversary of the first UN peacekeeping mission, which was in West Asia. And, as we salute the blue berets for their devotion to the cause of peace, it is necessary to take stock of the effectiveness of peacekeeping operations (PKOs).

The current turmoil in Sudan, for which Op Triveni was launched to evacuate Indian nationals, took me back to my one-year stay in that beautiful land as part of the Indian Air Force’s contingent in the UN Mission in Sudan. Ours was the first military aviation unit to be deployed in October 2005, so on the ground, things were in a flux.

Our first exposure to Khartoum made us wonder why we were there. Everything was peaceful — bustling markets, movie halls and operational public transport (seeing TATA buses and Bajaj three-wheelers gladdened our hearts).

The fact that we were from Hind opened all doors of the common man, but a visit to their Presidential Museum highlighted the official view of India. We expected to see artefacts of Sudan-India relations, especially since for a former NDA (National Defence Academy) cadet like me, the NDA’s magnificent Sudan block is a part of the DNA of the Indian armed forces. The Sudan block, which is the main building of the NDA, was made with a grant of 1 lakh pounds from the Sudanese people as gratitude for the sacrifices of the Indian soldiers in World War II. In the Khartoum Museum, however, there was not one word on India; we were left wondering where our diplomacy had been at fault.

But we were in Sudan for a different purpose — life had, indeed, been violent for the citizens, with South Sudan wanting to secede. The peacekeeping mission’s mandate was to usher in peace to enable a referendum in 2011. In the event, South Sudan became independent, but was soon engulfed in sectarian violence, requiring another UN Mission there. The truncated Sudan was relatively at peace, courtesy a dictatorship, till it, too, got subsumed by the recent violence born of a fractured polity.

Would the UN blue berets be required once again in Sudan since the US-Saudi-brokered ceasefire has been unable to stop violence?

The Sudan narrative is a microcosm of the difficult environment that peacekeepers are thrust into. Opinion is divided on whether they have ushered in lasting peace or are just a waste of money and effort, where the conflicting politics and economic interests of world powers drive the larger agenda.

The rich western nations contribute the maximum to the peacekeeping budget while developing nations provide troops that go into harm’s way. This disparity in budget contribution translates to western and P5 countries occupying seats of decision-making in the UN hierarchy, but with negligible contribution of the peacekeepers.

A notable exception in the past decade is China, whose financial contribution for peacekeeping has risen to 15.21 per cent, along with a sizeable number of troops. Thus, it is slowly getting into the driver’s seat to push its geopolitical and geo-economic interests through peacekeeping.

India (budget contribution only 0.1666 per cent) has sent 2,75,000 troops for PKOs since 1948. In addition, there have been 15 force commanders from the Indian Army. At present, there are 5,930 uniformed Indian personnel in 11 UN missions, which makes the country the third highest troop contributor. The Army runs a Centre for UN Peacekeeping, which is renowned for the training it imparts to Indian and international personnel. For the sake of peace, we have lost 178 Indians in foreign lands. This is one big price to pay in blood, and, hence, the doubts about the usefulness of peacekeeping.

The PKOs have metamorphosed from peacekeeping to peace-making and peace enforcement to stabilisation or state-building missions.

The reality is that other than the UN, there is no organisation that can address conflict and its multifarious fallouts, making the world revert to it for a solution. Each type of mission has its pros and cons and certain failures have given rise to negative perceptions.

But, as an article in Foreign Affairs puts it, “The overriding conclusion from the most up-to-date studies is that peacekeeping missions play an enormous role in reducing violence and preventing conflicts from spreading.” It adds, “Since the end of the Cold War, the UN has attempted to end 16 civil wars by deploying complex peacekeeping missions. Of those 16 missions, 11 successfully executed on their mandates, and none of the 11 countries has returned to civil war.” The results have a similar trend when one considers missions since the UN’s inception.

This, then, is the challenge confronting the world leadership. The Russia-Ukraine war has further accentuated the perceived ‘limitations’ of the UN in furthering peace. But had it not been for the UN’s initiatives in areas such as humanitarian aid in the war zone, evacuation of trapped civilians and movement of Ukrainian grain, the situation would have been far worse, including for countries far removed from the conflict zone.

The conflict has also driven home the most fundamental of all peacekeeping premises — peace cannot be imposed, and for peacekeeping operations to succeed, there has to be a political will amongst the belligerents.

The UN soldier, donning the blue beret these past 75 years, has stood guard for the cause of peace — the 1988 Nobel Peace Prize to the UN peacekeeping forces was an apt recognition of the tireless work being done by them. Presenting the award, the Norwegian Nobel Committee Chairman said, “Peace has to be actively protected — and this protection has its price. As many as 733 young people have sacrificed their lives in the service of the particular form of peacekeeping.”

Unfortunately, the number now stands at 4,298 worldwide. The UN peacekeepers deserve the world’s gratitude for their unflinching commitment to world peace.