The Americanization of Peacekeeping

THE AMERICANIZATION OF PEACEKEEPING THE AMERICANIZATION OF PEACEKEEPING: IMPLICATIONS FOR CANADA Joel J. Sokolsky Centre for International Relations, Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada 1997 Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data Sokolsky, Joel J., 1953– The Americanization of peacekeeping : implications for Canada (Martello papers, ISSN 1183-3661 ; 17) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-88911-743-8 1. United Nations – Armed Forces. 2. United Nations – United States. 3. International police. 4. United Nations – Armed Forces – Canada. 5. United States – Foreign relations – 1993– . I. Queen’s University (Kingston, Ont.). Centre for International Relations. II. Title. III. Series. JX1981.P7S64 1996 327.1’72 C96-932410-3 © Copyright 1997 For Jared, Mark and Rachel The Martello Papers The Queen’s University Centre for International Relations (QCIR) is pleased to present the seventeenth in its series of security studies, the Martello Papers. Tak- ing their name from the distinctive towers built during the nineteenth century to defend Kingston, Ontario, these papers cover a wide range of topics and issues relevant to international strategic relations of today. Peacekeeping, and the role of both Canada and the United States, has become increasingly more important and controversial. The American determination to “Americanize” UN peacekeeping has profound implications for Canada — a country that has long viewed peacekeeping as the quintessentially Canadian international role. In this Martello Paper, Dr. Sokolsky reviews the foreign and security policies of the United States and the impact of these policies on peacekeeping — both for the United Nations and Canada. The QCIR engages in scholarly research and teaching on various aspects of international relations, with a particular emphasis on national and international security policies. Working in conjunction with the Royal Military College of Canada, the QCIR also sponsors an active program of guest lectures and seminars. The work of the Centre is supported by a generous grant from the Security and Defence Forum of the Department of National Defence. We are fortunate to have the advantage of the technical skills of Valerie Jarus of the School of Policy Studies Publication Unit and Marilyn Banting in producing the Martello Papers. David G. Haglund Acting Director QCIR viii The Americanization of Peacekeeping Chapter Title ix Contents Acknowledgements xi 1. Introduction 1 2. The United States and Peacekeeping: Inertia, Interests and Ideals: US National Security Policy and Multilateralism in the Post-Cold War Era 5 3. Canadian Peacekeeping in the Post-Cold War Era 37 4. Conclusion 51 Glossary 53 x The Americanization of Peacekeeping Chapter Title xi Acknowledgements I would like to thank the Canada-US Fulbright Foundation for making it possible for me to spend my Sabbatical leave at Duke University and the Canadian Studies Center at Duke for being such a gracious host. Further support was provided by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Fellowship Program, the Royal Military Col- lege of Canada (RMC), the Security and Defence Forum of the Department of National Defence through the Queen’s University Centre for International Rela- tions. Louis Delvoie read the entire manuscipt offering many helpful suggestions and Marilyn Banting saw the editorial process through from start to finish. Finally, and always, I wish to thank my wife Denise for her continued support, and our children to whom this work is dedicated. The views expressed here are mine alone and not of RMC or any other agency of the Government of Canada. Joel J. Sokolsky 1997 Introduction 1 1. Introduction In making his case for the dispatch of US troops to Bosnia as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) mission, President Clinton assured the American people that “unlike the U.N. (United Nations) forces” they would have the “authority to respond immediately” to attacks. “America,” he warned, “pro- tects its own. Anyone-anyone-who takes on our troops will suffer the consequences. We will fight fire with fire, and then some.”1 Testifying before a US Senate Com- mittee, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General John Shalikashvilli stressed that any force sent into Bosnia had to be sized “sufficiently large so when they have to go in they are robust enough to take care of themselves.” He added that he wanted to ensure the force was not “pushed around” the way the U.N. troops had been.”2 Media reporting reinforced the view that for many Americans and their leaders, peacekeeping — as it has been practised by the United Nations in Bosnia and elsewhere has been “discredited.”3 Put more bluntly by Washington Post column- ist Charles Krauthammer, “peacekeeping is for chumps.”4 For Canadians, whose troops have bravely, honourably, and usefully served with the UN Protection Force (UNPROFOR) in former Yugoslavia for three years, these were surely inaccurate and indeed unfair assessments. Many resent that the United States, the world’s wealthiest and most powerful nation, is the largest debtor when it comes to paying its assessment for United Nations peacekeeping. The United States has also been near the bottom on the list of nations contributing forces. This so-called reluctance to bear a fair share of the burden along with replacement of UNPROFOR in Bosnia with the US-led NATO Implementation Force, (IFOR) seems to confirm that the Clinton administration, under pressure from the public and the Republican-controlled Congress, has abandoned UN peacekeeping. There is little doubt that American support for UN peacekeeping has declined from the early days of the post-Cold War era. The tragedy in Somalia touched upon every raw nerve in the contemporary debate over the future of American 2 The Americanization of Peacekeeping national security policy from the role of Congress to the purposes of the armed forces. The Republicans included criticism of UN peacekeeping in their Contract With America and once in the majority in Congress, pressed for funding cut-backs and restrictions on US involvement. They expressed support for the American soldier who was willing to accept a Court Martial rather than wear the UN insig- nia. In his speech accepting the Republican presidential nomination, Robert Dole assured the American people that “when I am President our men and women in our Armed Forces will know the president is his commander in chief — not Boutros Boutros Ghali, or any other U.N. Secretary General.”5 Peacekeeping, it appears, has become “un-American.” But the United States has not turned its back on UN peacekeeping. Quite the contrary; the Clinton administration, while pulling back from its initial enthusi- asm and now calling for limits on the number and scope of future peacekeeping operations, has devoted considerable attention to it. The White House has tried to sustain support for traditional peacekeeping by making it more responsive to American objectives. It has lent its support to what Canada’s Alex Morrison calls the “new peacekeeping partnership,” which brings together military, government and nongovernmental organizations.6 Moreover, as peacekeeping has moved closer to peace enforcement and the maintenance of internal order, the UN has had to rely increasingly upon America’s military capabilities and experience. The US, supported by its NATO allies, has lead UN authorized, but not commanded, coa- litions to bolster more traditional peacekeeping missions. Increasingly, it appears that peacekeeping will be done the American way or not done at all. The first part of this paper begins with a discussion of trends in American national security policy and multilateralism in the post-Cold War era. It then turns to an examination of how US financial and military contributions to UN peacekeeping are defined and measured, followed by a review of the constitutional issues involved. Next, it traces how Washington has used peacekeeping as a tool of US foreign policy, particularly in the post-Cold War era with an emphasis on the policies adopted by the Clinton administration. Part two looks at Canadian peacekeeping in the post-Cold War period. It begins with a discussion of trends in Canadian defence policy, highlighting the Department of National Defence’s (DND) 1994 White Paper and then focuses on the impact of the US policy toward peacekeeping. The argument here is that it has been the “Americanization” of UN peacekeeping, not opposition or indifference to it by Washington, that has had, and will have, the most profound implications for Canada, a country that has long viewed peacekeeping as the quintessentially Canadian (indeed un-American) international role. Introduction 3 Notes 1. Text of president’s remarks, The New York Times, 28 November 1995, p. A6. 2. Eric Schmitt, “As Prospects in Bosnia Brighten G.O.P. Doubts a Need for G.I.,” The New York Times, 22 September 1995, p. A12. 3. Robert Burns, “U.S. troops in line to keep peace in Bosnia,” Herald Sun, Durham, NC, 16 September 1995, pp. A1, A3. 4. Charles Krauthammer, “Peacekeeping is for Chumps,” Saturday Night, November 1995, p. 73. 5. New York Times, 16 August 1996, p. A27. 6. Alex Morrison (ed.), The New Peacekeeping Partnership (Clementsport, NS: Cana- dian Peacekeeping Press, 1995). The United States and Peacekeeping 5 2. The United States and Peacekeeping: Inertia, Interests and Ideals: US National Security Policy and Multilateralism in the Post-Cold War Era American involvement with peacekeeping must be viewed in the context of over- all US national security policy and conduct since the end of the Cold War — especially the fact that America did not come home. From the Persian Gulf to Somalia to Haiti and now to Bosnia, the United States has repeatedly used its unassailed military power to intervene in the disorderly world of the new world order. How can this be explained given that, as the world’s sole superpower, the United States faces no immediate military threat to its national security? Three interrelated factors can account for this.

Load more