Developing a United Nations Emergency Peace Service

Meeting Our Responsibilities to Prevent and Protect

H. Peter Langille

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781137603135
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Military Policy
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book makes the case for a standing UN Emergency Peace Service. With this one development - effectively a UN first responder for complex emergencies - the organization would finally have a rapid, reliable capacity to help fulfill its tougher assigned tasks. To date, the UNEPS initiative has encountered an unreceptive political, fiscal, and security environment. Yet overlapping crises are now inevitable as are profound shifts. This book presents an insightful review of the worrisome security challenges ahead and analysis of two recent high-level UN reports. It addresses the primary roles, core principles, and requirements of a UNEPS, as well as the arguments for and against such a dedicated UN service. Further, it reveals that the primary impediments and lessons learned also help demonstrate what may work and, equally important, what won't. With modest support, the book shows, the next steps are feasible, although it's important to recall that ideas, even good ideas, don't work unless we do.

1

Introduction

Abstract: The introductory chapter overviews the need and rationale for a United Nations Emergency Peace Service, identifying its core principles and primary roles. In contrast to the available arrangements – that depend on standby arrangements with Member States, which seldom stand up rapidly or reliably – it suggests a means to complement their efforts with a dedicated, standing UN service. The proposed UNEPS would be immediately available. It was specifically designed to help prevent armed conflict, to protect civilians at risk, to ensure prompt start-up of demanding operations and to address human needs in complex emergencies.

Langille, H. Peter. Developing a United Nations Emergency Peace Service: Meeting Our Responsibilities to Prevent and Protect. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. DOI: 10.1057/9781137603135.0004.

We made at least a beginning then. If on that foundation we do not build something more permanent and stronger, we will once again have ignored realities, rejected opportunities and betrayed our trust. Will we never learn? – Lester B. Pearson, Nobel Peace Prize Address, Aula, Oslo, Norway, December 11, 1957

Providing emergency assistance to those in need isn’t a new or novel idea. Contemporary societies usually develop permanent, professional well-integrated emergency services that stand ready to respond at short notice. Here, if trouble arises, people have immediate access to help by dialing a specific number (e.g., 911, 912, 112, 100).¹ At the local and national level in much of the world, emergency services are well-developed and reliable sources of assistance. Elsewhere, it can be a very different, desperate experience. Too often, families, communities, even entire countries confront death and devastation with little prospect of prompt assistance. At the international and global level, there is an evident, problematic gap. The United Nations has vast experience in emergencies and attempts to help, but its capacity is limited and heavily dependent on what other countries will contribute. Existing national and regional capacity is frequently unavailable and often inappropriate.

With one development – a standing United Nations Emergency Peace Service (UNEPS), effectively a “first responder” for complex emergencies – the UN would finally have a rapid, reliable capacity to help fulfill four of its tougher assigned tasks.

The UNEPS option was specifically designed to help prevent armed conflict and genocide, to protect civilians at extreme risk, to ensure prompt start-up of demanding peace operations and to address human needs where other actors either cannot or will not.²

Ten core principles characterize the UNEPS proposal. It’s to be:

a permanent standing, integrated UN formation;

highly trained and well-equipped;

ready for immediate deployment upon authorization of the UN Security Council;

multidimensional (civilians, police and military);

multifunctional (capable of diverse assignments with specialized skills for security, humanitarian, health and environmental crises);

composed of 13,500 dedicated personnel (recruited professionals, selected, trained and employed by the UN);

developed to ensure regional and gender equitable representation;

colocated at a designated UN base under an operational headquarters and two mobile mission headquarters;

at sufficient strength to operate in high-threat environments; and,

a service to complement existing UN and regional arrangements, with a first responder to cover the initial six months until Member States can deploy.³

Aside from providing a military formation to deter aggression and maintain security, there would be sufficient police to restore law and order, as well as an array of civilian teams to provide essential services. Arguably, the most distinctive feature of a UN Emergency Peace Service is that it would be a dedicated standing UN formation, prepared and ready to serve in diverse UN operations. Thus, a UNEPS would clearly be more reliable and rapid than the existing standby arrangements and standby partnerships with regional organizations, which require extensive negotiations, then national approval and national caveats stipulating terms of use before any contingents may be rented and deployed to a UN operation.

What will this book do?

It’s been over a decade since the initiative for a UNEPS commenced. There has been insufficient progress. Do the recurring challenges of rapid deployment, prevention of armed conflict, protection of civilians and addressing human needs still warrant such a service? Are the core principles sound or problematic? Oxford scholar Sir Adam Roberts suggests the option of a UN standing force doesn’t justify the effort in ten lines of criticism.⁴ Clearly, the case and various arguments merit a review. Several scholars offer new interpretations. Diverse priorities are evident. An update with a review of related developments may help.

More importantly, will we meet our responsibilities to those in desperate need? UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon highlighted the need for bold action in 2015.⁵ The Board of the UN Foundation also called for bold ambitions and actions in support of a more peaceful world.⁶ Recently, a high-level UN report finally acknowledged the need for a more rapid and reliable “first responder” for peace operations. Regrettably, they recommended the UN strengthen existing arrangements, which are unlikely to address either requirement. Yet a parallel Commission on Security, Justice and Governance called for a substantive expansion of the UN Standing Police Capacity (SPC), as well as a new Standing Civilian Capacity. While both reports confirm the challenges, they also suggest the need for further study and consultations, as well as engagement with civil society in new forums to promote recommended reforms. Meeting our responsibilities will definitely demand more far-reaching change. But an extended review process is underway. A UN Emergency Peace Service is neither a panacea nor any inevitable development; for now, it’s simply a better option to help. As with emergencies, prior preparation is critical.

This book departs from conventional wisdom to suggest the UN needs its own standing emergency service to fulfill its more demanding assigned tasks, particularly in responding to violent complex emergencies. The Organization should not be asked to make do with less on an ongoing basis. Further, it argues that the proposal for UN Emergency Peace Service remains sound. The key requirements of such a service are identified and updated.

The UNEPS initiative, however, encountered difficulties with an unreceptive political environment, austerity and insufficient support for research and educational outreach. An understanding of the primary impediments and lessons learned from prior experience should clarify the next steps. Like many similar initiatives, the UNEPS initiative suffers from being stovepiped and compartmentalized within several organizations that have insufficient resources to cooperate or work in advocacy at the international or global...