Political Aspirations and Perils of Security

Unpacking the Military Strategy of the United Nations

H. Edström, D. Gyllensporre

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781137008725
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Military Policy
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book comprises of a range of case studies of military strategy, based on UN documents, observing and concluding the effectiveness of each individual case. Edstrom and Gyllensporre analyse the UN's military strategy, its consequences and its potential to fulfil political ambitions.

1

Is there Utility in Applying Military Strategy in UN Missions?

Prologue—The revival of the United Nations

During the last decade many European and North American countries have focused their military troop contributions to operations in Afghanistan. Mindful of the austere economic situation for most of these countries, the announced plans for withdrawal of International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) troops is likely to generate a fresh perspective on future engagement in military operations. The United States (US) political and economic situation suggests that their military involvement is likely to be vetted against national interests more than that has been the case. In a similar vein, the United Kingdom (UK) is struggling with economic reforms on top of the combat fatigue that more than a decade of sustained operations in Afghanistan and Iraq has generated. France has similar challenges, albeit on a limited scale. As a consequence, the likelihood of new and ambitious North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or the European Union (EU) operations is slim, unless European and/or American vital security interests are at stake.

Although many medium and small nations face the same dilemma, they have an inherent need to manifest their role and stature in international politics. The voice of these countries is not stronger than their concrete commitments, including, but not limited to, military operations. Against this backdrop, participation in United Nations (UN) operations needs to be reviewed through a new lens as such engagements may not in the future have to compete with expectations and demands emanating from EU or NATO-led operations. Participation in UN operations offers a cost-effective demonstration on international commitment as the UN reimburse nations for their contributions and the level of sophistication of weapons and equipment do not necessitate critical sacrifices in capabilities for national defense as well as casualties. Moreover, it is less challenging to build a domestic political consensus for commitment to UN-led operations than those led by the EU or NATO.

Indeed, there are signs that several nations find involvement in UN-led operations more opportune. However, it is important to bear in mind that a potential UN revival will take place with a new national perspective as the modus operandi in terms of planning and executing military operations have been dominated by the NATO regime, that to a large extent is replicated by the EU, since NATO’s Implementation Force (IFOR) succeeded the UN’s Protection Force (UNPROFOR) in the disintegrated Yugoslavia in 1995. The UN will be approached differently based on vast experience that many nations on a systemic level, as well as on an individual level, have gained during the last two decades.

At the same time, the UN approach to operations has also undergone a reformation since the mid-1990s, albeit with its own distinct drivers. The UN system offer some differences and deviations from what has become norm within the military profession of Western nations, or Global North in UN parlance. Developing military strategies to ensure attainment to political goals and to cater for efficient execution of military operations is a critical success factor in any EU or NATO-led operation. How does this vital component of military operations manifest itself in the UN system? This book intends to shed light on the interaction between different levels within the UN system, a subject that should be of interest for anyone that wants to understand the organization. Notwithstanding, it seems to have escaped attention by academia as well as practitioners.

The purpose of the book

Today the UN is but only one of many international organizations engaged in military operations. The purpose of the UN is to “maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace” (UN Charter, Article 1). When the UN was established after the end of World War II (WWII), in October 1945, the organization was unique in its ambition and authority to unite the strength of individual states in order to maintain international peace and security. The collective approach of the UN had its roots in the global alliance that fought the Axis powers (Nazi Germany, Italy and Japan) during WWII. Following the end of the Cold War, its unique standing as a crisis management actor has declined as regional organizations increase their ambitions.¹ This relates to the ends, maintaining peace and security, but also to the means, the combination of diplomacy and military force, and the overarching methods, using the military power ranging from preventive deployment to peace-enforcement.

The UN system is designed to allow regional security organizations to safeguard and implement peace and stability. Chapter VIII of the UN Charter welcomes regional initiatives but seem to take it for granted that all initiatives are to be initiated by the UN Security Council (UNSC): “The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council” (Article 52). In some cases the UNSC has authorized military action in order to implement its resolutions without any intention to get militarily involved itself. UNSC Res 1970/2011 and UNSC Res 1973/2011 regarding the civil war in Libya were, for example, implemented by NATO launching Operation Unified Protector. The protection of the World Food Programme (WFP) shipment of aid, piracy and fishing is currently carried out by, among others, the EU naval operation Atalanta.²

Sometimes the UNSC authorizes member states to initiate military operations that subsequently migrate into a UN mission, once the UN organization is established and ready to assume command responsibilities. In February 2004 the UNSC was commending the Organization of American States (OAS) and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) for their lead efforts to advance a peaceful solution for Haiti. The UNSC concurrently authorized the establishment of the Multinational Interim Force (MIF) and declared its readiness to establish a follow-on UN stabilization force. Less than two months later the UNSC established a UN operation which took over authority from the MIF on 1 June.³ In September 1999 the UNSC authorized the establishment of Multinational Force under a unified command structure in order to restore peace and security in East Timor, and to protect and support UN Mission in East Timor (UNAMET) in carrying out its tasks. For a short time the Australian-led military operation International Force for East Timor (INTERFET) later on operated side by side with the UN Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET), established in late October 1999, before it, in February 2000, was absorbed by UNTAET.⁴ In the Sudan the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the African Union (AU) led several political efforts to seek solutions to the different conflicts in the country. In 2004 the political initiatives were complemented by a deployment of a military force, the AU Mission in Sudan (AMIS). In late July 2007 the UNSC decided to replace AMIS with the joint AU–UN Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID), which took over the military responsibilities on 1 January 2008.⁵

Conversely, the UNSC can also authorize the UN to provide a bridging force that initiates a military operation that migrates into an operation commanded by a regional organization, once that organization ready to lead. UNPROFOR in former Yugoslavia was, for example, established in February 1992. In December 1995 the UNSC decided to act under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and to hand over the military authority to NATO.⁶ NATO’s ISAF in Afghanistan is a similar example. ISAF was established in late 2001 when the UNSC called upon UN member states to contribute personnel, equipment and other resources to ISAF. At the beginning, the leadership of ISAF was exercised by key contributing nations on a rotational basis, initially by the UK at the helm. In October 2003, however, the UNSC decided to let NATO take command. Notably, the regional organization of the North Atlantic assumed command authority for a military operation in Central Asia.⁷

The UN can also operate in tandem with regional organizations in the same mission area. In September 2007 the UNSC decided to establish the UN Mission in Central African Republic (CAR) and Chad (MINURCAT) and at the same time authorize the EU to deploy EUFOR Tchad/RCA, and the Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) and the Community of Sahelo-Saharan States (CEN-SAD) to operate with their joint Multinational Force (FOMUC) in the very same countries.⁸

In some exceptional cases regional organizations have challenged the supremacy of the UN by taking military action without an approval by the UNSC. In March 1999 NATO initiated an air campaign, Operation Allied Force, against Yugoslavia without an authorization from the UN. The UNSC did, however, authorize NATO’s deployment of ground forces (Kosovo Force, KFOR) once the air strikes had reached their objectives in June 1999. In late September 2002 the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) decided to deploy the ECOWAS Peace Force for Côte d’Ivoire (ECOFORCE) in order to resettle the conflict in its member state. In early February 2003 the UNSC gave its approval for the operation in retrospect.⁹

Clearly, the UN’s role in military peace operations is multi-faceted. Still, the UN has never explicitly presented a military strategy. Why is the UN reluctant to formulate military guidance for the use of military power? Do the diplomats in New York and the generals in the area of operations share the same perspective on the use military of force? Arguably the suppressed military strategic dimension of the UN can prove to be an obstacle when seeking commitments from the Global North.

At the same time progress has been made in codifying the UN modus operandi. In 2008 its first Capstone Doctrine for UN Peacekeeping Operations was published. In the doctrine it is stated that over “the past six decades, United Nations peacekeeping has evolved into a complex, global undertaking. During this time, the conduct of United Nations peacekeeping operations has been guided by a largely unwritten body of principles” (UN 2008a). Yet the research to date has not been attuned to the pivotal relationship between political declaratory aspirations and their military consequences when faced with security challenges in the field. This book intends to fill the void by critically examining how the evolving strategic guidance of the UNSC has been translated into UN-led military operations. To what extent does military strategy matter? What is operational art in the context of UN-led operations? What can be inferred from the ongoing force operations when assessing the utility of the military doctrine of the organization?

The purpose of this book is to enhance the understanding on UN military strategy formulation in conjunction with UN-led military operations. To this end, the dynamics between different hierarchical levels related to the ten ongoing UN military force operations are analyzed.¹⁰

The research design

Filling the void—Previous research on related topics

This book touches upon four major fields of research: the UN system, the conflict cases, peace operations, and military strategy. Below examples of recent research in each of these fields are introduced.

The UN system has previously been comprehensively examined by, among others, Thomas G. Weiss and Sam Daws. Their Oxford Handbook consists of contributions from several scholars and provides a broad point of departure for in-depth analysis (Weiss and Daws 2007). Presumably based on the findings from the handbook project as well as his earlier research on the UN, the former author has more recently carried out research on the shortcomings of the UN (Weiss 2009). Nigel White provides additional perspectives on the UN system as such and so does the UN itself (White 2002; UN 2011). In order to understand the role of the UNSC reading the work of Vaughan Lowe, Adam Roberts, Jennifer Welch and Dominik Zaum is an imperative (Lowe et al. 2010). The UN itself contributes with a handbook on the working methods of the Council, which provides insights from within (UN 2012a).

When it comes to peace operations several different approaches have been applied in previous research. For example, Alex Bellamy and Paul Williams describe the developments from the early nineteenth century to the contemporary challenges. They also provide a typology of peace operations (Bellamy and Williams 2010). Katharina Coleman explores four international organizations (ECOWAS, NATO, SADC, the UN)¹¹ from the view of peace-enforcement (Coleman 2007). Michael Doyle and Nicholas Sambanis examine a single organization (the UN) in four types of operations: peacemaking, multidimensional peacekeeping, peace building and peace-enforcement (Doyle and Sambanis 2006). Paul Diehl and Daniel Druckman use numerous of examples from specific operations to address the whole spectrum of types (Diehl and Druckman 2010) while Virginia Page Fortna focuses on peacekeeping in civil wars (Fortna 2008). Some researchers focus on specific aspects of peace operations. Thorsten Benner, Stephan Mergenthaler and Philipp Rotmann focus, for example, on UN peace operations and organizational learning (Benner et al. 2011) while Walter Dorn explore technology and innovation (Dorn 2011). An authoritative account on the use of force in UN operations is provided by Trevor Findlay (Findlay 2002).

In most of the aforementioned books, the authors use case studies to illuminate the topic of research. Other researchers use the case study itself as unit of analysis. In this category, four main approaches can be identified: regional, country, mission and submission. Adekeye Adebajo exemplifies the first approach and focuses on UN peacekeeping in Africa (Adebajo 2011). The research of Séverinne Autesserre on the Congo exemplifies the second approach (Autesserre 2010), while Funni Olonisakin’s research on the UN mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) is an example of the third approach (Olonisakin 2008). The exploration of Jan Willem Honig and Norbert Both on the disastrous shortcoming of the UN forces in former Yugoslavia t...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures and Tables
• About the Authors
• Acknowledgments
• List of Abbreviations
• 1 Is there Utility in Applying Military Strategy in UN Missions?
• 2 The Evolution of UN Peace Operations
• 3 Mission in Southern Europe—UNFICYP
• 4 Mission in the Middle East—UNDOF
• 5 Mission in the Middle East—UNIFIL
• 6 Mission in Northern Africa—MINURSO
• 7 Mission in Central Africa—MONUC/MONUSCO
• 8 Mission in Western Africa—UNMIL
• 9 Mission in Western Africa—UNOCI
• 10 Mission in the Caribbean—MINUSTAH
• 11 Mission in Eastern Africa—UNMIS/UNMISS
• 12 Mission in Eastern Africa—UNAMID
• 13 Linking Political Goals with Military Objectives
• Notes
• Sources
• Index