Give peacekeepers a chance

Alain Le Roy at work

A 2011 interview with the head of the UN peacekeeping operations shows how little has been achieved in the intervening years.

The UN’s peacekeeping chief, Alain Le Roy, is asking the EU to play a greater role on the world stage and thinks the early signs from the External Action Service are showing that the EU wishes to live up to its international responsibilities. After meeting officials, he spoke with New Europe.

Do you have the resources that you need to carry out your missions?

We have enough soldiers but we lack some capabilities, which is why we are keen to develop our cooperation with the EU, who have a lot of capabilities. We don’t have enough helicopters, we lack intelligence capacity, military hospitals and the technology that the EU has. I’ve just come from a meeting and they were very interested to work more with our operations, or in support of UN operations.

Has the European External Action Service changed anything?

I feel a change. The meeting today was a change. It was clear that the member states wanted to define a more collective answer to how they can support peacekeeping. That is exactly why they invited me to come and they have shown that they want to take the initiative and support peacekeeping worldwide. The EEAS is still at the beginning, but this is a very encouraging sign.

Is the EU playing the role it could?

The answer is no. It could play a much bigger role. Less than 7% of our soldiers are European. That is fewer than 7,000. We have 1,400 from Italy, 1,100 from Spain, 500 from France and Austria with 400. In Africa, where our operations are very important, less than 2% of soldiers are from Europe.

The numbers could be increase, along with capabilities. I would like to see more involvement in Africa, which is next door to the EU. Any trouble in Africa could have important ramifications for the EU so I would like to see more political involvement.

How do you persuade the EU to take a larger role?

It’s clear that the EU has a collective ambition to be a very important actor in the global sphere. Participation in the peace and security field, is one where the EU has contributed a lot. What they did in the Balkans was tremendous. When the EU is united it’s a huge force. Now they have the EEAS so it’s time to play a larger role.

You’ve been involved in some places, such as Cyprus, for a very long time

Since 1948 we have had 64 peacekeeping operations and 49 have closed, and we remain with 15 today and Cyprus is one of the oldest, along with Kashmir and the Golan heights. The Cyprus operation began in 1964.

It is clear that the mission is there to provide a space for a political sphere and there is tremendous pressure for a political settlement. It is important to make sure that there are no incidents and thanks to our efforts, there are none.

Has the role of your agency changed? Peacekeeping today seems to be less about separating two sides and more with conflicts that have no front line.

It has changed drastically. The old, traditional peacekeeping is still there in the conflicts I mentioned, but now the bulk of our work is completely different, it’s larger multi-dimensional missions with stabilisation mandates. The DRC and Sudan missions are much more complicated and expectations are much higher and much more challenging than simply standing between two armies. We also have millions of civilians to protect.

This means that the soldiers you want have to be of a much higher standard, are you getting the quality that you need?

We have very professional soldiers. For example in the DRC we have Indian and Pakistani soldiers, they are extremely professional. They have to be very agile as there is a vast territory to cover, with no infrastructure. We have to be much more agile, more mobile and be able to react to any attacks on the civilian population. We don’t always have the right troops or the right equipment, but we’re working on that.

China is beginning to get involved in peacekeeping, how do you see that progressing?

It’s very clear that China has made a strategic decision, at the highest level,  to be more involved in UN peacekeeping. They consider that as a way to show their contribution to peace and security in the world. I was invited to China last year and I was very well received. China now has more peacekeepers in the UN than any EU country.

They are steadily increasing their commitment. They are sending engineers, medical facilities and they are extremely professional and we welcome that.

The UN has just released reports on women’s roles in peace building, how would you like to see involvement increase?

Recently, we issued a report on women, peace and security. It shows that we have made significant progress, for example the number of women in the police has increased from 3% to 9% and we have an ambition to reach 20% by 2014. Out of 15 peacekeeping missions, three are led by women, Cyprus, Liberia and Timor.

It’s important also, to increase women’s participation in political institutions. Thanks to our presence, in Afghanistan 25% of MPs are women, the same in Burundi. In Rwanda, and it was not our decision, but a Rwandan one, they decided to have 56% of women in parliament.

There is much more to be done. When we work with civil society we try to ensure that women are represented, this is a key aim of ours.

UN Counter Terrorism Strategy needs the support of EU

Jean-Paul Laborde / European Parliament

Interview about the UN counter-terrorism strategy in 2012

Jean-Paul Laborde, Special Advisor for the UN spoke to New Europe about the counter terror strategy that brings in thirty agencies to co-ordinate efforts, not only to fight terrorism directly, but to also use soft power to dissuade people from using terror as a way of achieving political goals.

The UN counter Terrorism Implementation Task Force has four main pillars; to address conditions conducive to terrorism; to combat and prevent terrorism; to build capacity for member states and measures to ensure that human rights are respected. This also involves preventing and reducing conflicts and supporting people who have been victims of terrorism.

You bring in expertise from thirty agencies to counter terrorism, but have we got a definition of what terrorism is?

This is a very good question. But if I talk as a lawyer, I would say yes, but if I am talking about general policy, I would say no. We have 16 instruments against terrorism that cover 99% of the acts of terrorism, but these cover everything with the exception of snipers. If we talk about a general understanding of what terrorism is, that is very difficult because it becomes political. You could ask this question about other matters. We have no general definition of corruption, transnational crime, but we are never asked about these definitions. For terrorism it is raised because it is connected to political issues. The issue is not the definition of the acts, we know what they are, but the scope of application, which means, do you cover soldiers, liberation movements and so on? That is the issue.

When there is an act committed, international co-operation works on the basis of the current conventions. We need a full convention on international co-operation against terrorism. I don't say a comprehensive one, but a full one.

It is said that definitions don't matter, as one expert said, "I recognise it when I see it"

That is correct, but the point is that we have to resolve these issues through a definition, because co-operating between countries, we need to have a common recognition, for example so that extradition can happen.

There is a military tendency to fight the previous war. Because we're now almost exclusively focused on Islamic terrorism, are we prepared for what might be the next type of terrorism?

Without the strategy we won't be ready, but now that we have covered the area of education, development and so on and since we are linking the fight against terrorism in a multi-faceted way, then yes, we are prepared for the next war. If you answer from only the perspective of law enforcement and the military, they could be stuck in the last war. Force has to be used, or law enforcement has to catch the terrorists, but that is far from enough for a successful strategy.

We have used just law enforcement and force to fight terrorism. Has it worked? Yes, partially, but not as much as we want. We cannot resolve the problem in its entirety so we have to work on other aspects of the strategy. We should think and act on a multi faceted approach.

Can we find processes to bring people into talks to end prolonged conflicts? Is the UN in a good position to be an honest broker?

I think we are in a department that is in a very good position for this, the political affairs. We may not always be seen as impartial, but we do have a neutral attitude. We have to continue with that and we will have a role to play. This is why I am here, because we have launched a project, with the support of the EU, on conflict prevention. first we work on preventative diplomacy, secondly we involve civil society, much more than before. Thirdly work with the media. They are also part of conveying the message of peace. We should talk with people as long as we have the mandate.

You also work on counter extremism. what have you seen that is effective, what works?

First of all, the outreach is working. Secondly we have some working groups that are doing good work, like that on the use of the internet by terrorists. We have also worked on the technical aspects and now on a counter narrative. What also works well, is the support of the victims. We have established a global survivors network, so these are some actions that are well recognised and regarded.

We're reviewing the strategy in November and I want to go further, in engaging the countries, some of whom could understand more. We als them to look at our strategy and try to implement it in their policies. The EU can be a leader, to show them how the strategy can work.

There is concern in the EU that, with large cuts in public services in many countries and there could be a violent response, that may not be terrorism per se, but could affect ordinary citizens. What advice would you give to President Barroso?

Or Mr Rompuy! My advice, well, what do we do? do we cut and where? now we're cutting into the beef. What the EC could do is the question. The budget is still very significant. They should try to connect things and develop a comprehensive strategy. You need to look at where the most affected parts are and treat them, don't try to apply everything thinly, to everywhere.

There have also been some interesting developments with former extremists, how do you learn to?

It is very interesting to see. I have nothing to say to them as it is better for us to just listen and find out the best practices. The problem is that these guys should not be seen as the tools of anyone, but people will listen to them, rather than to me.