|
time for a un emergency capacity
What is the United Nations Emergency Peace Service?
In order to address ever-increasing needs
for the international community to respond rapidly and effectively to emerging
crises, the United Nations Emergency Peace Service (UNEPS) was proposed as a
permanent emergency response service designed to complement, not replace
existing peace operations. UNEPS would have first in – first out capabilities,
designed to supplement the U.N.’s capacity to provide stability, peace, and
relief in deadly emergencies.
The need for UNEPS was best explained by former U.N. Secretary General Kofi
Annan. He compared his job of building support and raising funds for each new
U.N. peacekeeping mission to that of a volunteer fire chief who is forced to
raise funds, find volunteers and secure a fire truck for each new fire. “The
core challenge to the Security Council and to the United Nations as a whole in
the next century,” he declared, is “to forge unity behind the principle that
massive and systematic violations of human rights -- wherever they may take
place -- should not be allowed to stand.”
The creation of UNEPS is supported by organizations such as Citizens for Global
Solutions and Human Rights Watch. Representatives Albert Wynn (D-MD) and James
Walsh (R-NY) introduced legislation in the 110th Congress (H. RES. 213) in
support of UNEPS.
UNEPS would individually recruit, train and employ 10,000 - 18,000 personnel
with a wide range of skills, including civilian police, military, judicial
experts and relief professionals. This ensures that missions would not fail due
to a lack of skills, equipment, cohesiveness, experience in resolving conflicts,
or gender, national or religious imbalance. The Service would have special
expertise in conflict resolution, environmental crisis response and emergency
medical relief. Its military component would have two complete mission
headquarters with military, police and civilian staff, technical reconnaissance
units, light armored reconnaissance squadrons, motorized light infantry, armored
infantry, a helicopter squadron, an engineer battalion and a logistics
battalion.
In Darfur, the Sudanese government has
effectively prevented the U.N. from deploying peacekeeping forces, which has
contributed to the unraveling of the May 2006 Darfur Peace Agreement. If the
international community had UNEPS in its arsenal during negotiation of the peace
accord, the deployment of a UNEPS mission to Darfur could have been included in
the Darfur Peace Agreement. By the time national peacekeepers were ready to
replace UNEPS, the situation on the ground would have stabilized or, at minimum,
become more manageable.
UNEPS would help prevent early stage crises (caused by violent conflict or
natural phenomenon) from escalating into national or regional disasters. It is a
timely and important step in providing the world community with the
international emergency service it desperately needs in order to fulfill its
“responsibility to protect.”
Talking Points
• The need for rapid response
UNEPS will be immediately available to respond to a crisis. Currently,
“rapid deployment” is defined as 30 days for a “traditional” peacekeeping
mission (where all parties agree to allow in peacekeepers) and 90 days for
“complex” missions (where spoilers attempt to derail a peace agreement). This
delay not only proves fatal for civilians whose lives depend on fragile accords,
but also for the strength of the accords themselves.
• A better tool for the international community
The United Nations Emergency Peace Service will be equipped:
-
To take action in face of serious threats to human security and human rights;
-
To offer emergency services to meet critical human needs;
To assist in the establishment of institutions to maintain law and order;
-
To initiate peace building processes with focused incentives; and
-
To restore hope for local people in the future of their society and economy.
• Rapid response to crises is cost effective
- The amount of money saved on post-conflict reconstruction will exceed the
startup and operational costs of the United Nation Emergency Peace Service.
According to the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict, the
international community could have saved nearly $130 billion of the $200 billion
it spent on managing conflicts in the 1990s by focusing on conflict prevention
rather than post conflict reconstruction.
- A 2006 General Accounting office (GAO) study concluded that U.N. peacekeeping
is eight times less expensive than funding a U.S. force -- the U.N. is half as
expensive and the U.S. only pays a quarter of the costs of a U.N. mission.
- UN Peacekeeping has a record of success: A 2005 RAND report suggests the U.N.
is better suited for peacekeeping missions than unilateral U.S. action. The
study compared 16 U.S. and U.N. nation-building missions and found that of the
“eight UN-led cases, seven are at peace. Of the eight U.S.-led cases, four are
at peace; four are not—or not yet—at peace.”
• Supporting UNEPS enhances the security of the United
States
Fragile states provide breeding grounds for terrorism and international
crime; preventing destabilizing events is in the interest of the United States
and the rest of the world. Like all institutions, the United Nations needs
retooling to meet new challenges. No Congressional effort to reform the United
Nations is complete unless Congress explores ways to enhance the United Nations
ability to effectively prevent and respond to natural disasters, violent
conflict, and humanitarian emergencies. Sharing innovative solutions and
inspiring international teamwork is the American way.
For more information, please contact Don
Kraus, Executive Vice President, at Citizens for Global Solutions, at
202-546-3950 ext. 103 or
dkraus@globalsolutions.org
Updated
March 20, 2007
+ READ THIS REPORT IN PDF FORMAT
+ TAKE ACTION
|
