Home » AFSOC » EPIC FAIL: UN Peacekeeping in Africa

EPIC FAIL: UN Peacekeeping in Africa

by · October 31, 2012 · Posted In: AFSOC, SOF History, SOF News, Special Operations
execut13
Feral Jundi recently directed my attention to this article which I felt I needed to pass on to our readers.  It is written by Eeben Barlow, the founder and CEO of Executive Outcomes.  EO was the Private Military Company that went into Angola and Sierra Leone, leading highly successful operations at a fraction of the cost of UN “success stories” that resulted in hundreds of thousands of people being killed.  The reality is that organization like the UN, and select governments and corporations, have every interest in prolonging conflicts in order to keep the coffers filled.  Executive Outcomes provided a reasonable solution for bringing about conflict resolution in key parts of the world and they paid dearly for it.  As Woodrow Wilson once remarked, “”If you want to make enemies, try to change something.” -Jack

Related Posts

When the DPKO’s African missions are tabulated, one can gain some perspective of the scope of the U.N.’s involvement in Africa

By Security Solutions International Staff

By Eeben Barlow

Since fielding the first United Nations (U.N.) peacekeeping mission in 1948, the world has witnessed the deployment of about 63 U.N. peacekeeping operations.

Since 1989 the U.N.’s Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) has deployed 18 missions to Africa.

By November 2006 the DPKO’s deployment had reached an all-time high with 81,000 military and police personnel and 15,000 civilians. With 18 active missions in progress at that time, it was estimated that the DPKO would possibly require a budget of U.S. $7 billion.[1] By 2010 this figure will have increased significantly, particularly in Africa.

The U.N.’s DPKO African missions
When the DPKO’s African missions are tabulated, one can gain some perspective of the scope of the U.N.’s involvement in Africa. Table 1 below chronicles these operations.

Defining Success
Success can only be achieved or claimed if a mission has succeeded in bringing about and maintaining peace, allowing for nation-building to take place in an environment where the local population can live with the knowledge that they are secure.

However, in order to assess the success of the DPKO’s missions, one needs to analyze differences between a DPKO mission and an alternate option exercised by an African government that has experienced the DPKO’s deployment in its country.

The Sierra Leone Debacle
Sierra Leone has had firsthand experience of a devastating, cruel, and vicious civil war. With a civil war already in progress when he seized power, Captain Valentine Strasser’s calls to the United Nations for assistance were ignored. He subsequently contracted a private military company (PMC) known as Executive Outcomes (EO) to come to the rescue of Sierra Leone. EO arrived in Sierra Leone in April 1995 and when the company left in January 1997 because of massive international pressure, the rebel forces that had terrorized the country were all but destroyed. The United Nations then stepped in.

In assessing the U.N.’s role in terms of cost and achievement, one gains perspective by comparing it against EO.

Read the rest of Eeben Barlow’s article at Homeland1.

Follow Sofrep on:
OR  rss
29 comments
  Livefyre
Newest | Oldest
Old PH2
Old PH2 moderator like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 16 Like

I've got to say this, that pic of the UN troopie wearing his sky blue Kevlar and standing in front of that sign is absolutely INSPIRED!  +1000 pts!

coyotebrowngear
coyotebrowngear

I recently came back from a very brief visit to South Sudan where I met with people within the UN system. I have done the same in Liberia, Ivory Coast and Sierra Leone a few years ago. There are a bunch of great people working their asses off to improve the situation for the people in those countries. However, those same UN troops/staff are often very open about how problematic it is to work within the UN system. People in position of power can be incredibly incompetent and the system is bureaucratic to the point where peoples lives are at risk if they happen to get sick in remote locations and they can't get the right signature to be evacuated on time. And despite widespread critisism of certain practices (like "imprisoning" people in refugee camps) its always business as usual.

 

I agree that picking a side in a conflict and sending in troops of western standard (that for instance can't be robbed of their own weapons like in Darfur) is way better than trying to be neutral and just hindering the natural development and stabilisation of conflicts. However, the evidence brought forward by Barlow is not so strong. It is easy to cherry pick failures, but I have seen more comprehensive analyses that show some positive effects of UN peacekeeping. From what I recall it appears that UN peacekeepers are deployed to the hardest cases. When taking this into account while comparing conflict years with UN peacekeeping to those without, then UN peacekeeping appears to decrease conflict risks. That does however not mean that employing PMCs could have an even better effect. 

JackMurphyRGR
JackMurphyRGR moderator like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 6 Like

 @coyotebrowngear Actually Sierra Leone provides a pretty clear case study that a PMC had a much better effect than the UN deployment did.  I'm unaware of any UN success stories.  It seems like where you did have UN intervention and peace it was because the conflict was already winding down and/or back room politics paid off some of the antagonists.  We also have interesting definitions of what a mercenary is and isn't.  A South African fighting for a commercial company is a mercenary.  A Pakistani soldier pimped out by his own government to the UN because they can't afford to pay his salary is not a mercenary.

JHR
JHR

 @JackMurphyRGR  @coyotebrowngear I keep thinking about UN Disaster Stories, like Bosnia (no offense Andrew). Perhaps thats why we have former operators in groups like Sir Edward Artois  doing humanitarian relief work. These men have it "going on". If you've ever seen them work;  they are tight, effiient and still beathing.

 

Surf375
Surf375

 @coyotebrowngear  @JHR  

 

And sure enough, the new article about Chinese using 1st & 2nd World PMCs comes out, and to our surprise it's Blackwater. As for mercenaries in AF, I think it's safe to say everyone's there. Everyone's sleeping with each other, but only one's actually have a plan, and that's China. It's the most eloquent and parsimonious plan, We'll Suck You Dry. The clarity of that kind of policy is unmatched. BZ to them.

coyotebrowngear
coyotebrowngear

 @Surf375  @JHR  @JackMurphyRGR

 Great pointing out the Chinese. From what I've seen so far they are definitely able to get things done. There is something to say about harnessing the power of egoism to get beneficial side-effects (like Chinese building and maintaining roads to access remote areas). But then again I'm not sure of the long term benefits of the vast Chinese influence that is building up..

 

And Eastern blockers, I realize they have a bunch of aviation mechanics and pilots in Africa. Do they have a significant presence of on the ground mercenaries as well?  

Surf375
Surf375

 @JHR  @JackMurphyRGR  @coyotebrowngear 

 

The only success stories I know coming out of Africa these days are Chinese ones. 

 

That said, I know EO have splintered into lesser PMCs, like Southern Cross, etc. so are there still even experienced mercs, of the caliber of 1995 Sierra Leone, in Africa?

 

And if they are still around, wouldn't they be largely under the employ of the Chinese? Like the Chinese using ex-KGB, other Eastern blockers, the possibilities are exponential.

 

Executive Outcomes was covered in the History channel, glad to read an article on it here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYE1s7lDBYc

coyotebrowngear
coyotebrowngear like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @JackMurphyRGR And yes, I agree that in many cases some UN soldiers are just as much mercenaries as a PMC. I would definitely prefer that PMCs became a valid option. But for that to happen the UN would have to step away from the unrealistic neutrality policy.

CBSenior
CBSenior

@coyotebrowngear @JackMurphyRGR How about a nice big bite of that shit sandwich, what wonderful options we are left with sometimes. I think i have something stuck in my teeth.

coyotebrowngear
coyotebrowngear

 @CBSenior  @coyotebrowngear  @JackMurphyRGR  I see what you are saying that we, the west/international community is more likely to cause long term problems whatever we do. But as the situation is currently people want to do something about the crap they see going on in the world and military forces need the experience (and cash in some cases) of the UN missions. Within that context the only realistic option is the UN Security Council or any of the regional organizations that already mandate peacekeepers or issues sanctions (for instance EU, AU).

 

In the case of the UNSC it decideds whether missions should monitor peace or force peace. In most cases the UNSC will try to keep with the identity of being a third party outside of the conflict and try to be neutral. Since UN staff is supposedly protected in conflict areas by being neutral that's what's preferred from within the UN at large. The UNSC has however taken sides in several situations so it can definitely move away from neutrality if enough members of the UNSC prefers it.

 

Having the UNSC and regional organizations decide whether to employ force is off course not optimal. It is however the most acceptable option to the international community. Whatever we do the UN will continue reacting to threats to the peace and international security -- so I try to find out how the UN can do the least harm and change its actions incrementally.

CBSenior
CBSenior like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

@coyotebrowngear @JackMurphyRGR Who would decide what the right side is? Security Counsel, Human Rights counsel led by Iran?

coyotebrowngear
coyotebrowngear like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

 @JackMurphyRGR Yes, from my perspective (social scientist) the problem is that its difficult to generalize that particular case (Sierra Leone) to the entire population of PMC's versus UN peacekeeping. What I take home from that case is that Executive Outcomes was really succesful in dealing with that particular problem compared to the UN.

 

I definitely agree that its hard to pinpoint a UN enforcement mission that had any clear success. The analyses I mentioned basically measure yearly conflict risk (for instance the level of casualties) and that appears to go down compared to if there is no UN peacekeeping mission (when taking into account that the UN acts during the most severe circumstances). A problem with that type of research is that it might not say much about the long term problems caused by UN involvement in general. And speaking of cases, Somalia is an obvious case where UN and other aid has perpetuated a conflict and probably caused more deaths than if we would just have stayed out. 

MedicSteve2
MedicSteve2

@JackMurphyRGR @coyotebrowngear I've gotta get

Old PH2
Old PH2 moderator like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 4 Like

After seeing the UN track record in Bosnia and Rwanda I have simply come to expect less and less of them.  I'm thoroughly disgusted by the rampant pocket padding and incompetence.  Just because we want to be "inclusive" we regularly place folks into positions of great responsibility, that do not have the moral fortitude to prevent abuse.  It's our failure as much as theirs.  I was programed to be wary of the "death squads" and PMC's via the media of my youth.  More and more I get the feeling that if properly managed and given clear operational goals PMC's would be the smart man's solution in many situations.  Acountability, with PMC's I'm seeing it more and more, not so much with the UN.

 

The best value for the civilian and govt' alike, just got to get over that old PMC-Mercenary-Death Squad stigma.     

CBSenior
CBSenior

@Old PH2 Not just Death Squad stigma, but inherited ideoligies and predjudicies. The article mentioned the EO was made up of (Aparthied: my insert) South Africans. Is that who represents the best alternative? What if EO was a North Korean enterprise, should we use them in Cambodia? Who makes that judgement? This is not a business and should be no ones business.

Old PH2
Old PH2 moderator like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @CBSenior  @Old I guess the issue is, that this is a business.  Ultimately, who do we trust?  Hired guns or poorly paid and under-trained thugs?  In my mind it's about accountability and effectiveness.  Your example of using Serbian war criminals or North Korean forces or South African veterans is interesting.  How can we place all of these men in the same group?  Members of the SADF may have served during Apartheid but that nation has a requirement for National Service.  Did that young man share those politics?  The Serbs yup might be a problem, same with the NORK's. 

 

Honestly, for as long as folks have been at war there have been hired gun hands.  Accountability, Clear operational goals, these should be the standards all forces are held to.

StormR
StormR

 @ColonelProp  @Old  @CBSenior  @Old

 I think there is a lot to be said for 'familiarity' of those on the ground.  As South Africans, the EO personnel would have a much better grasp of regional issues, geographic issues, tribal issues, 'who are the players', language, culture etc.  If my limited read of the area is correct, trust issues would revolve corruption and connections rather than color.   I think there is a is that UN peacekeepers are there to make the peace; not true, they are there to keep the peace..  And too often 'keeping the peace' is left open to individual intrepretation. 

ColonelProp
ColonelProp like.author.displayName 1 Like

@Old PH2 @CBSenior @Old all - I highly suggest we all read the works of Mr Barlow et. al. on EO. We are succumbing to the common misconception that all South Africans were white racists in EO (not me). In Sierra Leonne I believe there were only something like 10 or so "White" SADF members. Sorry I may be butchering this but we must be careful. There are some old EO fellas lurking out here. They can do my explanation justice.

MedicSteve2
MedicSteve2 like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

 @Old PH2 Completely forgot about the UN in the Balkans!  I'm 46 at the end of the year, and already suffering from CRS Syndrome

LauraKinCA
LauraKinCA like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @MedicSteve2  @Old PH2

 Maybe I have it too, but thinking back, I really don't remember a time when they were truely effective in crisis management. The concept is great, but I don't think the execution has ever been good. I have in mind a toothless tiger that found friends that corrupted it and in turn preyed on those it was trying to help. Just like the League of Nations needed to be scrapped and restarted with the UN, maybe it is time for the UN to go and be replaced.

MedicSteve2
MedicSteve2 like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

Great work, Jack.  

 

I absolutely hate to see the UN involved in about anything, but not for philosophical reasons.  Everywhere I've been in contact with them--Haiti, SE Asia, Central America--they leave a trail of brokenness, with very little in the way of security.  

 

I know a village in Haiti, where about a dozen babies were born to YOUNG girls right before the earthquake.  Half Hatiian/half Nepalese.  

 

I have yet to hear of an accountability for something like rape by a peacekeeper.  I've heard of them redeployed back to country of origin, but never held accountable.

CBSenior
CBSenior

Not a big fan of either concept. The U. N. and the PMC. That was more of a business proposal power point than Humanitarian call. The Guy writing the article was the founder and CEO of that business, so he by no means is going to self report any negatives. Quite a pitch though. Hey world, we KILL better and cheaper than Government Stooges. Two for one Special in December. And before you start throwing around rightcheous indignation, then who will do it. Most of you are the same people who say that the U. S. should not be the worlds Cop, then why should anybody else be. I seem to remember that no one stepped in our Civil War. Or is it that we super civilized White people have to take care of those ignorant and backwards Black people who can not take care of themselves. Mind your own Fucking Business is an American tradition that we are surely losing way to much. Besides we have not really been to good in picking winners and losers in those armed conflicts. We wind up fighting deadly wars with either interested party. Two brothers fight and a stranger steps into stop it. The stranger is suprised by both brothers punching him in the face. What is the differrence.

JackMurphyRGR
JackMurphyRGR moderator like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @CBSenior It is a statement about using Africans as a solution to African problems rather than UN intervention which clearly does not work.  Yeah, SADF vets kill better than the UN does.  No apologies.  What you see is what you get.  I prefer a non-interventionist foreign policy as well but that isn't what this article is about.

CBSenior
CBSenior

@JackMurphyRGR I understand your article and the spot light on it, I believe the original article was not written in that same ideal. He seemed like he was just drumming up more business, making a buck of someone else' misery is just bad Mojo. Also which Africans are we talking about. Ones that brutally oppressed their own people of a different color, while ignoring International calls for rights and respect. Is that what they were going to export. What if it was Charles Taylor that hired EO, is that OK? As in with our own COIN talk, the stepping off point is what will work better and not should this even be done. Why do we step over that line so easily, debate should start there. I agree that the millions killed is a tragedy but if the two sides do not work the conflict out themselves true resolution will not be achieved. We may not like the shape that conflict resolution takes, but making their war a business is not the answer. Both the U. N. and the PMC's should stay out.

JackMurphyRGR
JackMurphyRGR moderator like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 5 Like

 @CBSenior  @JackMurphyRGR Considering the racial tinge of some of these comments, I would also point out that most of the Executive Outcomes contractors were black South Africans, at least after the original Port Soyo contract in Angola.

CBSenior
CBSenior

@JackMurphyRGR Unfortunately yes, they see it as a business and dragging it out compensates them greatly. Get them all out of it. Sometimes terrible things have to happen for real change to come. It is the time line that we most do not understand. We want it fixed now. It is hard to watch the extended suffering, a true tragedy.

JackMurphyRGR
JackMurphyRGR moderator like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @CBSenior  @JackMurphyRGR Barlow isn't in this business anymore.  He was drummed out of the business by those who want to see these conflicts continue.

ColonelProp
ColonelProp like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 8 Like

Excellent Share Jack - as can be expected by anyone who has read Mr. Barlow's works the data is very damning for the UN. I recommend his EO history "Executive Outcomes - Against All Odds" for those interested. The data in the article comes from his tome. The money quote is at the end... "... African conflicts are complex and nuanced. It is unrealistic to expect PMCs to solve the larger political issues. A PMC can stop the killing and provide the essential window of peace that will allow reconciliation and free and fair self-determination ... Ultimately, only Africans can provide the enduring political solutions to Africa's seemingly endless wars." "Nevertheless, of all the tools currently available to end organized African violence, only PMCs are capable of quickly bringing peace to the African continent. They should not be dismissed as mere 'mercenaries.' They have proven their ability to push low-intensity conflicts to settlements, and they have shown their willingness to enter seemingly intractable conflicts, where Western powers dare not tread. They have a unique and remarkable ability to act as a force multiplier, working with local forces and nullifying problems of scale. PMCs can be used to pacify areas of ethnic tension, provide peacekeeping services, oversee truce monitoring operations, protect NGO programs, undertake humanitarian rescue operations, and if necessary, even conclude wars decisively.[9]"