For U.N., Afghanistan May Be Mission Impossible

NATION-BUILDING

November 25, 2001|SUSAN LYNNE TILLOU | Susan Lynne Tillou recently completed two years of work with the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor. Before her work with the U.N., she served twice with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and in Bosnia-Herzegovina

A recently released report from a panel on U.N. peace operations, appointed by the secretary-general, suggests various organizational reforms to better meet these types of challenges in the field. Coincidentally, the panel was led by the man who now serves as the U.N. special envoy for Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi.

The report urges that the previously distinct operations of peacekeeping and peace-building be formally fused, recognizes the need for realistic mandates to be set, as well as the necessary strategies through which to attain those mandates. It falls short of pressing for the eternally sensitive issue of a standing U.N. military force, which would greatly enhance the organization's ability to rapidly deploy and to conduct coordinated international training exercises before going to the front lines. But the report does call for Security-Council approved mandates to specify authority to use force.

The report's reforms, if adopted, would greatly enhance the U.N.'s ability to negotiate and contain future conflicts, as well as integrate operations with the intention of going beyond a mere pause in hostilities to actually building sustainable peace by rebuilding the core institutions of a nation. Until that time, the U.N. will remain a mostly reactive organization beholden to its member states. As such, it has no choice but to be drawn into operations, like Afghanistan, that are doomed to fail.

Prev | 1 | 2

FEATURED