29157: Fuller (reply) Re: 29119: from Raber Re: 29105: lyall (comment): Haitian Peacekeepers (reply) (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

> From Rob Fuller

Lyall wrote:
> I have read that the countries are paid directly from the peacekeeping
budget
> then they pay the soldat whatever they are going to pay them. With a
surplus
> going to the country supplying troops.

Yes. The current rates which the UN pays to countries are listed here:
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/faq/q10.htm. Essentially it's about
US$1100 per month for each soldier.

PM Raber <raber88@zoominternet.net> wrote:
> Yep!  That's the rich countries outsourcing "peacekeeping" jobs to poor
> overpopulated countries.

Well, yes, but what else do you suggest? The rich countries pay most of the
costs of UN peacekeeping, but don't have the manpower to staff all the
missions. I have served in the British army, and can attest that it is
extremely overstretched - there aren't enough soldiers for existing
commitments, and finding new recruits is very difficult. That the burden of
supplying personnel should fall on countries with large manpower reserves
makes sense to me.

What seems strange is that some of the biggest troop contributors (Pakistan,
Nepal, Jordan) are countries which have severe internal security problems
themselves. Surely their governments would like to maintain as many troops
as possible at home? I can't believe that the financial reward (whatever is
left from US$1100 a month once they have
taken out the soldier's pay) can make it worth the trouble. Maybe there are
other (political) factors at work here? Does supplying troops somehow notch
up diplomatic credit with the US administration?

> Haven't you noticed that when they really want something
> done, the majority of the UN force is made out of so-called first world
> countries?  When the fighting was in the European backyard of the former
> Yugoslavia, I did not see any Pakistani people on TV.

I'm not sure that the Yugoslav wars provide a good example of the UN
"getting something done" - it took three years before they did anything much
at all. Anyway, there is a preference in peacekeeping missions for countries
in the same region to take most of the burden: that's why the force in
Bosnia comes from the European Union, the force in Sudan from the African
Union, and the force in Haiti is Brazilian-led with the majority of the
personnel coming from other South American countries.

By the way, the countries of the former Yugoslavia are not in the European
"backyard". They are part of Europe itself.

> Those poorer guys need the money and take the job
> but  they are not going to stick their neck out solving other country's
> business.  There is no interest in solving the problem and getting the job
done

I agree that MINUSTAH appear to be thoroughly incompetent, and to have done
almost nothing in Haiti. They seem to have no training for peacekeeping
roles, and most of them are unable to communicate with Haitian people. But
on the other hand, I'm not sure what it would mean to "solve the problem"
and "get the job done" in Haiti. Is there even a need for a peacekeeping
force now? What can and should they be doing? (particularly those outside
Port-au-Prince?) Perhaps spending all those millions on building a few roads
would be a better use of the money.

Rob