The Times (London) raises a terrifying spectre

"America fights to take charge of UN peacekeepers around world". This "news" story is a prime example of why almost all the UK "quality press" ain't that no more. As for "terrifying"...

The American lobbying effort is set to prove hugely controversial. If successful, the change would amount to a radical remaking of the organisation, bringing it closer to its origin in the Second World War as a US-led alliance.

It is also stirring memories of the disastrous UN peace operation, led by the US, in Somalia in 1993, which ended in chaos and killing on the streets of the capital, Mogadishu.

Some UN officials also fear that putting an American at the head of peacekeeping potentially could enable the US to use UN operations for covert activities — as it did with the UN weapons inspection teams in the Iraq of Saddam Hussein.

An American-led UN peacekeeping department could eventually help Washington to replace the US-led coalition in Iraq with a UN-flagged force, diplomats and experts say...

The above is fear-mongering nonsense. Having an American in charge of the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) might gain them some influence over how operations are conducted. But any UN missions still have to be approved by the Security Council where China and Russia (and France) have vetos; without their concurrence no new mission will take the field, however much the US might want one (see Darfur).

In November 1993 the UN force in Somalia, UNOSOM II, was under the DPKO; it was commanded by a Turk (with an American as deputy commander). But the "Blackhawk Down" mission was carried out by TF Ranger--a strategic U.S. asset that did not fall under UNOSOM II but rather remained under American operational command and control. So having an American in charge of the DPKO would have been irrelevant in terms of that operation.

Furthermore, the weapons inspectors in Iraq were not under the DPKO (can't these guys ever get their facts right?), and they were not headed by Americans.

The first inspection group was USCOM and its head was a Swede and Australian respectively (it was under USCOM that any US espionage took place). UNSCOM was directly under the UN Secretary General (never an American).

The second group was UNMOVIC and its head (never an American) is also under the Secretary General, not the DPKO.

UNSCOM personnel remained employees of the country seconding them, which allowed for some funny business. UNMOVIC personnel on the other hand are UN employees which reduces the chances for such activity.

Mark C.

Posted by markc at November 3, 2006 02:26 PM