|
Server : Apache/2.4.62 System : FreeBSD fbsdweb2.web.rcn.net 14.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 14.1-RELEASE releng/14.1-n267679-10e31f0946d8 GENERIC amd64 User : www ( 80) PHP Version : 8.3.8 Disable Function : NONE Directory : /domains/roger.dnai/95Book/ |
Upload File : |
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//SoftQuad//DTD HoTMetaL PRO 4.0::19971010::extensions to HTML 4.0//EN"
"hmpro4.dtd">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="GENERATOR"
CONTENT="Mozilla/4.03 (Macintosh; I; 68K) [Netscape]">
<TITLE>Mr. Derek Boothby...NATO and the United Nations</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" BGPROPERTIES="FIXED">
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+4">NATO and the United Nations</FONT></FONT></CENTER>
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+3">Derek Boothby</FONT></FONT></CENTER>
<CENTER><I><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+2">United Nations
Department of Political Affairs</FONT></FONT></I></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">A number of comments were made
during the course of the NATO Workshop on the unsatisfactory nature of
cooperation with the U.N. Frankly, I wonder if expectations regarding
cooperation have been far too high. If one looks at the differences
between NATO and the U.N. and at the attitudes towards each other that
have been prevalent for the past 45 years or so, I think it can be argued
that this first cooperative experience has been far better than anyone
should have thought likely.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">THE NATO-U.N. DICHOTOMY</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">NATO and the U.N. are two
organizations trying to work together despite the fact that they have very
different philosophies: NATO is an organization designed to fight war, if
necessary, in order to defend peace; whereas the U.N. is an organization
designed to avoid war in order to maintain peace. In other words, the
effectiveness of NATO is directly proportional to the amount of military
force available for use; whereas the effectiveness of U.N. peacekeeping is
inversely proportional to the amount of military force used.</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">This dichotomy has been
abundantly evident in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It is what has led some
commentators to draw incorrect comparisons between the two organizations,
either accusing the U.N. of being wimpish and limp-wristed or accusing
NATO of being too ready to flex its muscles. The truth, it seems to me, is
that both groups are keeping to their original purposes and should not be
criticized for doing so.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">U.N. troops, like NATO troops,
do not belong to their organization: they are loaned by their respective
governments. Some of them come from countries that have reputations for
being militarily effective. U.N. troops, however, are neither armed nor
deployed to fight a war. On the contrary, their principal weapon is their
high-profile presence; traditionally their vehicles are painted white,
they have no heavy weapons, they wear light-blue helmets, they operate
under large blue flags, and they are often deployed in very exposed
positions between forces that have fought, or even wish to continue
fighting, a war. They must carry out their duties without taking sides.
Their tasks, as Dag Hammarskjold once said, are not soldiers' tasks--but
only soldiers can do them.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">By trying to be impartial and
not take sides in the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina, U.N. troops over the
past three years have been directly involved in assisting in the delivery
of hundreds of thousands of tons of food and other aid. They have helped
hundreds of thousands of people survive who might otherwise have died in
that vicious civil war. Over 160 U.N. troops have died in the performance
of their duties.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">The predicament of the U.N.
troops in that area has been that they were put into a situation in which
peace was not present. Steadily that predicament worsened, with no
political solution emerging. When military muscle became necessary to
enforce the no-fly zone and to be available for other action, the U.N.
turned to NATO.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">POLITICAL-MILITARY
DECISION MAKING</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">To date, NATO-U.N. cooperation
has produced some interesting lessons--and a few painful ones. And
although there have certainly been some differences of opinion, in general
the military cooperation has worked well. It is in the political arena
that confusion has been concentrated, which has made political-military
decision making very difficult. For example, the application of the "dual-key"
principle for the authorization of air strikes has essentially been a
control mechanism to the U.N., but to NATO it has been an undue and
irritating constraint.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">On broader political issues,
political mandates have been painfully hammered out in the Security
Council in New York. Compromise and concession have been necessary to
obtain agreement among the 15 member-states. All too often, however,
results have been riddled with ambiguities and phrases that mean different
things to different governments. Then those mandates have been handed
through the Secretary General of the United Nations to U.N. civilians and
troops in the field for implementation. Troops need clarity of aim and
purpose, but all too often they receive ambiguous and sometimes just plain
unachievable mandates.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">The membership of the Security
Council is, of course, not the same as that of NATO, and this fact has
been and will continue to be part of the problem of NATO-U.N. cooperation.
Many of the major actors on the Security Council are also important
members of NATO, but this has not necessarily made matters any easier;
this is largely because those same governments have been unable to agree
politically on a common policy pertaining to Bosnia. The credibility of
both the U.N. and NATO is thus undermined.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">IMPROVING COMMUNICATION
TO IMPROVE COOPERATION</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">I believe that difficulties
between the two organizations could be ameliorated by closer political
contacts. But here again historical differences must be recognized. For 45
years NATO and the Warsaw Pact were two military alliances confronting
each other--and ignoring the U.N. In U.N. circles, where members were
struggling to put a cap on arms expenditures and urging disarmament, the
two military alliances were often seen as significant parts of the problem
rather than contributors to the solution.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Now the world has changed and
the U.N. and NATO, in their efforts to change and modernize, find
themselves thrown together. But old habits and attitudes die hard. It is
not easy, particularly for many of the non-European countries represented
at the U.N., to set aside 45 years of distrust and suddenly regard NATO as
a knight in shining armor dashing to save the U.N. maiden in distress.</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Finally, there is the fact that
peacekeeping and peace enforcement do not mix. Peacekeeping, as evolved by
the U.N. over some 40 years of trial and error, requires impartiality and
objectivity--no matter what the provocation. As soon as peacekeeping
troops take sides, they are seen by one of the conflicting parties as part
of the opposition. Even protective convoys escorting humanitarian aid to
the besieged of one side may be perceived as biased if the denial of food
is a war aim of the other side.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">As far as the U.N. Charter is
concerned, peacekeeping in its various forms comes under Chapter VI. Peace
enforcement, however, comes under the more forceful measures of Chapter
VII. The slippery slope between the two chapters is steep and dangerous;
once a peacekeeping force has slipped down it there is no going back. A
peacekeeping force cannot be impartial on Sunday, beat hell out of one
conflicting party on Tuesday, and return to impartiality on Thursday as if
nothing had happened.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">U.N. AND NATO ROLES</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Personally, I doubt very much
that the U.N. should ever be in the business of military peace
enforcement. That is a task that should be carried out by fully effective
military organizations, such as NATO or groups of states willing to do and
capable of doing the job. Such organizations should first be given
political license from the U.N. Security Council under Chapter VII; the
operations should be halted if that political license is subsequently
withdrawn. But the U.N. itself has neither the military command systems
nor the political cohesion to carry out military-enforcement tasks.
Moreover, it is arguable that a U.N. that carried out military peace
enforcement--except perhaps in the most unique circumstances--would find
itself in much political trouble with its members. In my view, Chapter VII
of the U.N. Charter, as an authority for U.N. peace enforcement, was
written for a different era and has little military application to today's
world.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">This argument raises a counter
question: should NATO, as muscular as it is, engage as an institution in
the much lighter-weight business of peacekeeping? The troops and skills of
its members are needed, but whether NATO as an institution should perform
peacekeeping is perhaps still open to question. In circumstances that
occur in or close to a NATO area, will NATO be able to remain impartial
and objective? Or is NATO going to hijack the peacekeeping concept and
give it a different definition?</FONT></FONT> </P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">CONCLUDING REMARKS</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">We should not lose sight of the
fact that NATO and the U.N. are, in essence, two very different
organizations. They have widely different approaches, even if their final
goal--peace--is the same. Each has its role to play: sometimes those roles
complement each other and can be played together on the world stage, but
at other times one needs to step back and leave the stage to the other.</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">The new NATO and the new U.N.
will doubtless continue to have occasions to work together in what might
be called an institutional partnership for peace. I strongly suggest that
the best way the two can cooperate is through improved communications and
contacts, not only at military levels but at political levels as well.</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1"><B><I>POSTSCRIPT</I></B></FONT></FONT></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">In the light of developments
since the date of the Dresden Workshop, I wish to add a postscript.</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Much of what I have said above
has been borne out by events. On 30 August NATO aircraft began bombing
Bosnian Serb positions and the Rapid Reaction Force artillery was brought
into action around Sarajevo. U.N. peacekeeping became peace enforcement,
with NATO firmly in charge of the military assets necessary for
enforcement and, to all intents and purposes, the related decision-making
processes. As some would say, the "Mogadishu Line" was crossed
for the second time in two years. The impartiality and objectivity
normally associated with U.N. peacekeeping became a dead letter. I do not
deny the concept that force is often a valuable tool of diplomacy; it is
who should use that force and in whose name that is in question.</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">At the same time as force was
being used, energetic U.S.-led peace efforts were being conducted that
will hopefully result in a peace agreement--an outcome that all should
welcome. To ensure that that agreement will stick and become an enduring
settlement, the proposals at this time of writing are for a NATO-led peace
implementation force, acting under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, to
replace UNPROFOR. The concept of peace implementation, which implies a
readiness to use military force in the event of breaches to the peace, is
one--it seems to me-- that is more appropriate to NATO than traditional
peacekeeping. Whether it works remains to be seen.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">This Balkan war has produced
many unintended consequences and paradoxes. One of them has been that a
U.N. peacekeeping force, lightly armed and with a mandate to be impartial,
has been required to operate in a war theatre and told to stay there until
the conflict is over, then a NATO-led force with war-fighting capabilities
will come in to replace it to police the peace. Surely it should have been
the other way around--but then again, it is a strange world.</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0"><A HREF="Boothby.htm">Go to Top
of Page</A></FONT></FONT> <BR><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0"><A HREF="95Workshop.htm">Return
to Dresden '95 Page</A></FONT></FONT> <BR><A HREF="../index.html">Return to Home Page</A> </P>
</BODY>
</HTML>