How the US, the UK and France spend most of their forces
in private wars
After
several weeks of war in Mali, the United Nations has decided to discuss the
possibility of sending a contingent of peacekeepers to the African country.
France, which has so far led the offensive, has been willing to actively
participate in a hypothetical multinational force whose mission would be to
keep the peace in the region.
That is not
the norm. According to the latest UN report on peacekeeping missions, none of
the G8 countries are among the top contributors of personnel. They are the
biggest money donors, as several of them must endow an extra amount for being
on the UN Security Council -which approves and oversees all missions. But
soldiers from other countries, mainly from Africa and Asia, are the ones that
put their lives at risk on the ground.
The first
strong economy on the list appears at number 11 and it is Brazil, which
contributes nearly 2,200 soldiers. In the 15th position we find the
first member of the Security Council (China, contributing 1,869 soldiers). We
need to dig until the 20th position to find the first member of the
G8, Italy (1,127 soldiers). Behind the Italians are France in the 26th
(968 soldiers) and way behind the United Kingdom in 45th place (283
soldiers) and the U.S. in 57th place (128 soldiers).
One of the
main reasons for the lack of Western troops as peacekeepers at the UN is that the
organization always tries to implement local solutions to local problems. For
example, most of the peacekeepers in Somalia right now are African, while in the
missions from the 90’s and 2000’s in the Balkans, European troops were the core
of the contingent.
Photo: AP |
However Pakistan
and Bangladesh, the two biggest net contributors for armed personnel, are present
far away from their area of influence. More precisely they are present in
Africa -in the Ivory Coast, Liberia, Darfur (Sudan) and Congo- despite having a
serious problem close to home with neighboring Afghanistan and tensions with
India (another top contributor). Nepal, also in the top 10, has nearly a
quarter of its troops in Lebanon, a country with which it shares no cultural,
religious or historical ties or even a similar climate.
Meanwhile,
European countries seem to have a predilection for the Middle East. 98% of
Italian troops at the UN, 97% of Spain’s, 91% of France’s and 77% of Germany’s
are in the UNIFIL mission in Lebanon. 97% of British blue berets are deployed
in Cyprus. On the other hand, the Americans have 67% of their staff in Haiti.
These
figures contrast with the number of troops that all these countries have
deployed in Afghanistan. Even after sending home 33,000 soldiers in 2011, the
U.S. has 68,000 troops still on Afghan soil, two thirds of the total of peacekeepers
deployed by the UN worldwide.
France has
deployed around 2,500 troops in Mali. Along with more than the 500 it has in
Afghanistan, they make a total of three times the number of boots that the
country dedicates to peacekeeping missions. Both Mali and Afghanistan are
considered scenarios on the global war on terror against al-Qaeda and its
affiliates.
In fact,
the countries with the largest contingents in the so-called war on terror (the
US, the UK, Germany, Italy, France and Spain), have a total of about 90,000 soldiers fighting in a frontline that stretches from Afghanistan to Mali and
Somalia. That number does not include some personnel that do not appear on the
books, as the pilots of American drones. Furthermore, none of these operations
is supported by the UN, but by NATO.
The total
number of UN peacekeepers is a similar figure of 94,090. However, between the
six countries mentioned before (the US, the UK, Germany, Italy, France and
Spain) they only add 3,400 soldiers to the UN-led operations -less than 3.5% of
the total. They provide, however, 59% of the funds for peacekeeping missions,
without which none of these operations would be possible. A formula -the world powers
pay the bill; let others do the fighting- reminiscent of certain aspects of the
theory of dependency and colonialism.
0 comentarios:
Post a Comment