US Lobbies for Top UN Peacekeeping Job

Sometimes, it is necessary to read foreign papers to figure out what’s happening in one’s own country. While the American media makes a big to-do about Tuesday’s elections, they have missed a significant move by US diplomats to secure the top UN peacekeeping job for an American general. If successful, this would change much about UN peacekeeping and much about American foreign policy. And one had to read about it in The Times from London, not the one from New York.

According to the article by James Bone and Richard Beeston, published Friday, “The unprecedented US bid for the top UN peacekeeping post would place an American in command of the 95,000 UN peacekeepers in trouble spots from Lebanon to Sudan.” They also add, “The peacekeeping job is so important to Washington that it is ready to relinquish its traditional control of the UN management department. Christopher Burnham, the American in that post, announced last week that he was leaving for the private sector.”

Why is it important who heads the UN blue helmets? Simply put, the US has a policy of not permitting US military forces to be commanded by non-Americans. Thus, General MacArthur lead the UN forces in Korea in the 1950s (until he forgot that the president is commander-in-chief). Also, Messrs. Bone and Beeston wrote, “The US only has 335 peacekeepers and 330 civilians serving with UN missions around the world, with the largest deployment being 239 police officers in Kosovo and 48 police officers in Haiti,” but the US pays 26% of the peacekeeping bill. With a Yank in charge, more Americans could be UN soldiers.

There is French opposition to this; French foreign policy has maintained since 1945 that for every problem in the world there should be an international body headed by a Frenchman. Also, The Times report said, “Some UN officials also fear that putting an American at the head of peacekeeping potentially could enable the US to use UN operations for covert activities — as it did with the UN weapons inspection teams in the Iraq of Saddam Hussein.” Naturally, the French would never do such a thing.

The incoming Secretary-General, Ban Ki Moon, the South Korean Foreign Minister, takes over on January 1, and he had loads of support from Washington. It may well be quid pro quo time. If he selects an American to head the blue helmets, US troops in Iraq might well find themselves under a UN flag before long. One official speaking to Messrs. Bone and Beeston said, “This has nothing to do with Iraq. It has much more to do with Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia-Eritrea. These are the ones we are spending so much money on.” Never believe anything until it has been officially denied – this has everything to do with Iraq.

The Times piece also quoted Toby Dodge, Iraq expert at Queen Mary’s College, University of London as saying, “I am sure that the UN at a very senior level is aware that the Iraq portfolio is heading their way and for once is taking pre-emptive action to be ready for it. It is my understanding that active contingency planning has already been undertaken for the UN to be ready to take a central role in Iraq.” Meanwhile, the American press reported on an evangelical minister from Colorado in a gay sex scandal.

© Copyright 2006 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home