International Peace and Security

views updated

INTERNATIONAL PEACE
AND SECURITY

The first purpose of the UN, as stated in Article 1 of its charter, is the maintenance of international peace and security. To this end, the organization is required "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, and to bring about by peaceful means … adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace." The UN has undertaken this heavy responsibility with varying levels of success over the years. However, in the nuclear era, international security in the absence of an organization like the United Nations is unimaginable. As of 31 March 2006, 2,247 UN peacekeepers had died in the service of international peace and security since 1945. In recognition of their invaluable contribution to world peace, the United Nations peacekeeping forces were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1988.

BASIC CHARTER PROVISIONS

The basic provisions of the charter defining the functions of the Security Council and the General Assembly are summarized here, but fuller accounts will be found in the chapters on those bodies, which complement the present chapter.

1. Relative Powers of the Security Council and the General Assembly.

Under Article 24 of the charter, the Security Council has "primary responsibility" in questions of peace and security. It is invested with special powers enabling it to decide, on behalf of the entire UN membership, to take collective action when peace is threatened (Articles 39–42) and is empowered to negotiate agreements with individual members of the UN for the provision of armed forces necessary to maintain international security and to determine how many members shall participate in any collective action undertaken (Articles 43–48).

The General Assembly, on the other hand, is empowered only to consider and make recommendations, either to the Security Council or to particular states, on matters pertaining to peace and security. Moreover, under Articles 11 and 12, it may discuss but may not make actual recommendations on any special dispute between nations that is currently under consideration by the Security Council. However, though the Assembly is not expressly empowered to take action, neither is it expressly prohibited from doing so. In the only charter provision touching on the subject, paragraph 2 of Article 11—which is the focus of conflicting interpretation in the long-standing constitutional controversy on the financing of certain General Assembly-sponsored peacekeeping operations—the actual wording is as follows: "Any such question [of international peace and security] on which action is necessary shall be referred to the Security Council by the General Assembly either before or after discussion."

2. Bringing a Dispute or Serious Situation Before the UN.

Although the charter firmly establishes the primacy of the Security Council over the General Assembly in matters of peace and security, it does not stipulate that disputes or serious situations must be discussed in the Security Council before they are discussed by the General Assembly. A dispute may be brought before the UN in a variety of ways specified in the charter without order of preference. One or more of the disputing parties may bring the matter before the Security Council voluntarily, or the council itself may choose to exercise its constitutional right to investigate a dispute at its own discretion; or any UN member, whether or not it is involved in the dispute, may propose the matter for discussion by the General Assembly; or a non-UN member that is a party to the dispute may—under certain conditions—bring it to the attention of the General Assembly; or the Security Council may ask the General Assembly to discuss the matter.

Despite these liberal provisions, the charter does not stipulate that all political disputes between states should be brought before the UN. Article 33, for example, enjoins UN members "first of all" to seek a solution to their differences on their own initiative (though if they fail to take this initiative, the Security Council is empowered to call upon them to do so). Only after their efforts to achieve a peaceful settlement have proved fruitless are the disputing parties obliged by the charter to refer the matter to the Security Council. Again, the UN was never intended by its founders to be regarded as the sole international agency for dealing with political disputes. Thus, Article 52 states that nothing in the charter "precludes the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action" and that members participating in such regional arrangements or agencies "shall make every effort to achieve pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies before referring them to the Security Council."

POLITICAL BACKGROUND TO THE UN'S PEACEKEEPING ACTION

The UN's efforts to preserve international peace and security are the most contentious aspect of its entire work, because of the inherently political nature of its role and the fact that both the Security Council and the General Assembly are essentially political bodies, not courts of law that apportion blame and impartially hand down judgments drawn from a set of established legal codes. Their task in disputes brought before them is to find a compromise solution that is at once satisfactory to all parties, based on the political realities of the world situation and consistent with the principles of the charter. In this way, each local dispute brought before the UN automatically becomes a dispute involving the entire membership, as nations express differing views on the appropriate action to be taken by consensus of the membership.

The involvement of the general membership in all disputes is precisely what the founders of the UN intended—as a means of ensuring collective international responsibility for political solutions that are both just and realistic. However, in order to provide a counterweight to the unavoidable taking of sides, they established the principle of unanimity among the great powers by bestowing the right of veto on the permanent members of the Security Council. The workability of this principle in practice presupposed a basic measure of cooperation among the great powers. As events turned out, however, unanimity among the great powers proved to be a chimera. Within a year of the signing of the charter, the world was in the throes of the cold war, and the United States and USSR were engaged in a power struggle. The effects of this unexpected political development on the UN's work in maintaining international peace and security were immediate and devastating. Each dispute between the smaller nations that came before the UN was subsumed under the developing power struggle between the giants. As a result, between 1945 and 1990, the Security Council was deadlocked again and again by 279 vetoes. Furthermore, the charter requirements for agreement on the provision of armed forces for the UN could not be met.

Whereas the USSR looked to the Security Council and the veto as its power instrument in the UN, the United States looked to the support of the majority vote in the General Assembly. In order to circumvent the Soviet veto in the Security Council, and being at that time confident of majority support for most of its substantive policy objectives, the United States spearheaded a drive to turn the General Assembly into a body for action in periods of international crisis. This drive culminated in the adoption in 1950 of the Uniting for Peace Resolution, which empowered the General Assembly to undertake collective measures for maintaining or restoring peace when the Security Council found itself unable to act in times of emergency (for the terms of the resolution, see the chapter on the General Assembly). It was the United States, represented by Secretary of State Dean Acheson, that originated the proposal for the resolution. Although some of the small nations expressed reservations about certain clauses, most of them were eager to participate more fully in the UN's peace and security responsibilities. Only India and Argentina abstained in the vote, and only the Soviet bloc voted against the resolution, branding it as illegal and contrary to the charter.

The Uniting for Peace Resolution has been invoked in three major crises: the Korean War, the Suez crisis, and the Congo crisis (discussed under Case Histories below). In all three instances, the Security Council found itself deadlocked, and General Assembly action was deemed essential by the majority of members. Nevertheless, despite its proven usefulness as an instrument of restoring peace in these instances, the resolution seems unlikely to be invoked in future disputes. Certain countries questioned the legality of the resolution and of the General Assembly's action taken under it, and they felt justified on these grounds in refusing to contribute to the costs of the Suez and Congo peacekeeping operations.

At the end of the 1980s, the demise of the Soviet Union and the cold war dramatically changed this state of affairs. Within a few short years the entire Soviet bloc was dissolved and a new era of cooperation between the United States and the Russian Federation raised hopes that the Security Council would begin to fulfill the function foreseen for it by the organization's founders. However, the political vacuum created by the collapse of the East-West stalemate was followed by an eruption of intransigent, deadly regional conflicts and civil wars, particularly in Africa and Eastern Europe. While 13 operations were established between 1948 and 1988, more than 40 new operations have been authorized since 1988. At its peak in 1995, total deployment of UN military and civilian personnel reached almost 70,000 from 77 countries. By the end of 1996, 16 peacekeeping operations were severely taxing the ability and political will of member states to respond with personnel and financial contributions. And in 2006, the number of current peacekeeping missions was holding steady at 15.

TYPES OF ACTION TAKEN BY THE UN

The UN has two main responsibilities with respect to the political disputes that are brought before it by states: helping the parties concerned to arrive at a peaceful settlement of the issue that caused the dispute, and maintaining the peace if animosities threaten to erupt into violence or restoring the peace if hostilities have already broken out.

An Agenda for Peace

In response to the profoundly altered global political situation, on 31 January 1992, the Security Council met in a historic summit session attended by 13 heads of state and two foreign ministers. At that session, the Security Council requested Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali to prepare an analysis and recommendations on ways to strengthen UN peacekeeping efforts. In June 1992 the Secretary-General submitted An Agenda for Peace. This important document challenged member states to adapt their world organization to the new international situation with more effective and rational peacekeeping procedures. The document began by defining four types of peace-related activities:

Preventive Diplomacy.

Defined as action to prevent disputes from arising and to prevent existing disputes from escalating into conflicts. The Secretary-General listed a number of different actions that constituted preventive diplomacy: confidence building (exchange of military missions, opening channels for the exchange of information, and providing monitoring for regional arms reduction agreements), fact-finding missions, early warning from regional organizations with observer status at the United Nations, preventive deployment of a UN force before hostilities occur, and the establishment of demilitarized zones.

Peacemaking.

Action to bring hostile parties to agreement through peaceful means like those outlined in Chapter VI of the UN Charter, namely: negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement or appealing to regional organizations.

The Secretary-General suggested that the International Court of Justice remained an underused resource for peaceful settlement of international disputes. He recommended that member states that had not accepted the general jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, do so before the end of the UN Decade of International Law in the year 2000. Another tool for peacemaking was the imposition of economic sanctions under Article 41 of the charter. The main difficulty with this tool was compensating member states that would find their own economies crippled by the imposition of sanctions on an offending state.

Peacekeeping.

Defined as the deployment of a UN force to the field, usually with the consent of the parties to the conflict. Peacekeeping could involve military, police, and civilian personnel. The UN pioneered this new form of military deployment during the early conflicts in the Middle East and the Congo. Peacekeeping troops serve at the request of all the parties to a conflict, for example, to monitor implementation of a cease-fire, or to prevent shipments of weapons across borders. They may also serve to monitor a demilitarized zone and provide a buffer between combatants. Peacekeeping forces, however, are only lightly armed and authorized to use force only in self-defense. By its very nature, peacekeeping implies an even-handed treatment of all the parties in a conflict.

Peace Enforcement.

Although not officially defined as a separate concept in An Agenda for Peace, the Secretary-General did propose the creation, under Article 43 of the charter, of forces which could respond quickly and forcefully to imminent or out-right aggression. In fact, the UN had sometimes been called upon to send forces to restore a cease-fire. In the Secretary-General's proposal, these troops would be maintained and specially trained by the armed forces of member states. When called upon, they would be more heavily armed than peacekeeping forces and authorized to use deadly force to stop combatants. The Secretary-General proposed that these special units would be on call for quick response to the early stages of an international crisis. In the post–cold war era, peace enforcement had already found expression in the Security Council's authorization of a multinational force (sanctioned by the UN but not, however, under UN administration) led by the United States to suppress Iraq's 1991 invasion of Kuwait.

However, the concept of peace enforcement remains controversial, as some experts and member countries maintain that there is no basis in the UN charter for an organization dedicated to international peace to settle disputes with military force. Under the charter, member states are meant to settle their disputes by peaceful means.

On the other hand, Article 43 of the charter provides for member states to make military forces available to the Security Council. In fact, it was originally envisioned that the United States alone would provide twenty divisions (over 300,000 troops), a very large naval force, 1,250 bombers, and 2,250 fighters. These provisions were never implemented due to lack of consensus.

In 1993, former Undersecretary-General Brian Urquhart, who participated in the management of 15 peacekeeping operations during his 40-year tenure at the United Nations, proposed the creation of an elite UN-trained military force made up of international volunteers, not soldiers seconded from national forces. Urquhart suggested that such a volunteer force would give the Security Council the ability to back up preventive diplomacy with immediate peace enforcement. "Clearly, a timely intervention by a relatively small but highly trained force, willing and authorized to take combat risks and representing the will of the international community, could make a decisive difference in the early stages of a crisis," said Urquhart in the journal "Foreign Policy." Urquhart suggested that such a force might have been used effectively, for example, during the attempted deployment of the UN Mission in Haiti (UNMIH). When the United States naval ship carrying the first deployment of troops arrived at Port au Prince in October 1993, the ship was prevented from landing by a disorganized and violent demonstration of armed civilians at the port. By August 1994, the escalating crisis in Haiti had led the Security Council to authorize a multinational force, similar to that used in the Iraq-Kuwait crisis, to restore the democratically elected government of Haiti. The escalation might have been prevented if UNMIH had been enabled to carry out its mandate.

Peace Building.

Defined as "action to identify and support structures which will tend to strengthen and solidify peace in order to avoid a relapse into conflict."

The UN had already begun to develop the concept of "peace building" as early as 1990, when the UN Observer Group in Central America supervised Nicaraguan elections which were certified to be "free and fair" by the UN Observer Mission to Verify the Electoral Process in Nicaragua (ONUVEN).

Since then the demand for UN electoral assistance has grown enormously. Before 1992, the UN supervised elections in Haiti, Namibia, and Nicaragua. However, between January 1992 and June 1994, the United Nations received 56 requests for electoral assistance. The organization's Electoral Assistance Unit was established in 1992 and operates within the Department of Peace-keeping Operations. Following is a list of member states requesting and receiving assistance from 1989 to 1999: Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Brazil, Burundi, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Côte D'Ivoire, Croatia, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, East Timor, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Indonesia, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mexico, Moldova, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands Antilles, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Western Sahara, Yemen, and Zambia. The Electoral Assistance Unit is supported by the UN Trust Fund for Electoral Observation, which is a voluntary fund. Besides building peace by strengthening a country's democratic infrastructure, the Secretary-General also included the following activities under the concept of peace building: clearing land-mines so that agriculture and transportation may be resumed safely; disarming the warring parties; taking custody of and destroying weapons; repatriating refugees; training security personnel; educational and cultural exchanges; and joint projects to develop agriculture, improve transportation, or utilize shared natural resources.

The Cost of Waging Peace

In Renewing the United Nations System (Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation, 1994), co-authors Brian Urquhart and Erskine Childers (former senior adviser to the UN Director General for Development and International Cooperation) cite the following figures: "By early 1993 the UN was deploying four times the number of troops, 70 times more police and over 100 times the number of civilian personnel as in 1987, at nearly 10 times the annual cost. As of 30 April 1994 the UN had contributions from 66 countries of 65,838 troops, 2,400 military observers, and 1,307 civilian and police personnel, with possible further deployments (and costs) evolving almost weekly relative to situations like those in Haiti, Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. The projected costs of peace-keeping rose from some us$ 600 million in 1991 to an estimated us$ 2.3 billion for 1993."

In fact, in May 1994, the Secretary-General was unable to obtain 5,500 troops from African nations to protect refugees and international aid workers caught in the bloody Rwandan civil war. He attributed this to donor fatigue among the countries that frequently assign troops to UN operations.

As of 28 February 2006, more than 1 million soldiers, police officers, and civilians had served under the UN flag since the establishment of the first peacekeeping mission in 1948. As of 28 February 2006, 107 countries were contributing a total of some 72,800 uniformed personnel (military and police). There were also about 5,300 international civilian personnel, 1,600 UN volunteers and more than 10,000 local civilian staff.

As the world has increasingly turned to the UN to deal with conflicts, the cost of peacekeeping has risen accordingly. The annual approved resources for all peacekeeping operations from 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006 amounted to about us$ 5.03 billion. The estimated total cost of UN peacekeeping operations from 1948 to 30 June 2006 was approximately $41.04 billion. However, global military expenditures in the mid-2000s amounted to around us$ 1 trillion per year. Of course, these monetary figures do not adequately take into account the tragic price paid in human death and suffering during war.

Most UN peacekeeping operations are not financed from the organization's regular budget, but from special accounts established by the organization to fund each particular operation. Each member is then assessed for a share of the mission's estimated cost. Special assessments for peacekeeping are divided into three categories. The five permanent members of the Security Council pay about 22 percent more than the regular scale of assessments because of their greater influence over Security Council decisions (by virtue of holding the power of veto). Other developed industrial states pay the same share for peacekeeping as they pay for the regular budget. Wealthier developing countries pay one-fift h of their regular budget share for peacekeeping. The poorest nations (least developed countries, or LDCs) pay one-tenth of their regular share. There are certain inequities to this arrangement. For example, a number of "developing" states with per capita GNPs of $5,000 or more still are assessed only one-fift h of their regular budget assessment for peacekeeping (which have included the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei, Singapore, Bahamas, Israel, Cyprus, Barbados, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Malta, Greece, Libya, and Oman).

A recurrent and critical problem for UN peacekeeping has been the consistent shortfall in the payment of members' assessed contributions. As of 31 December 2005, member states owed the UN a total of us$ 2.92 billion in current and back peacekeeping dues.

Since 1945, over 130 nations have contributed personnel at various times; 107 were providing peacekeepers as of 28 February 2006. As of 31 December 2005, the top 10 contributors of personnel to ongoing peacekeeping missions were Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Jordan, Nepal, Ethiopia, Ghana, Uruguay, Nigeria, and South Africa. The small island nation of Fiji has taken part in virtually every UN peacekeeping operation, as has Canada.

For the above reasons, the Secretary-General suggested in his Agenda for Peace that contributions to UN peacekeeping operations be financed from defense budgets, rather than from foreign affairs budgets. Other innovative proposals in the agenda included obtaining standing commitments from member states as to the numbers and kinds of skilled personnel they can offer the United Nations as new operations arise; new arrangements for training peacekeeping personnel, including indispensable civilian and police staff; stockpiling basic peacekeeping equipment (vehicles, communications equipment, generators, etc.); and air and sea lift capacity to be provided by member states either free of cost or at lower than commercial rates.

Genesis of a Peacekeeping Mission

Many missions are planned in response to a crisis, so the steps in mounting them happen more or less simultaneously. When more time is available, the following sequence of events is usually adhered to:

Mediation. The Secretary-General may be instructed to dispatch field survey missions, or may choose to send his own special representative to help achieve a political settlement.
Initial Design. The mission concept is presented to the Security Council for its preliminary approval.
Security Council Directive. The Security Council directs the Secretary-General to report back within a specified amount of time with a plan for the mission that includes its size, structure, duties, and timeline.
Mission Design. Units of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations put together a plan for the mission.
Security Council approval obtained.
Creation and verification of the mission budget.
Submission of the budget to the Fift h Committee (Financial).
Fift h Committee submits the budget to the General Assembly for approval.
Assessment letters are sent to the member states.

Until approved by the General Assembly, the Secretary-General cannot make contractual commitments for equipment, transport, or other services in excess of a us$ 10 million annual spending authority for special circumstances. The length of the approval process creates a devastating time lag when an international crisis develops that requires a timely response.

Chronology of Peacekeeping Operations

Between 1945 and 28 February 2006, there were 60 UN peacekeeping or observer missions. The following is a list of the UN peacekeeping operations, arranged in chronological order. Unless otherwise noted, figures are accurate as of February 2006.

UNTSO-United Nations Truce Supervision Organization

Duration:

May 1948 to present.

Headquarters:

Government House, Jerusalem.

Strength:

153 military observers.

Fatalities:

44.

Mandate:

Initially to supervise the original truce of 1948; in 1949, following the conclusion of armistice agreements between Israel and its Arab neighbors (Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria), its responsibility became to assist the parties in supervising the application and observance of those agreements. However, over the years, its activities and responsibilities have expanded to cover a number of UN-supervised emergency situations in Israel, Syria, and Lebanon.

Composition:

UNTSO's military observers come from 23 contributing countries: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, China, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and United States.

Six-month appropriations for 2006:

Approximately us$ 14.66 million.

UNMOGIP-United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan

Duration:

January 1949 to present.

Location:

The cease-fire line between India and Pakistan in the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

Strength:

44 military observers.

Fatalities:

11.

Mandate:

To observe developments pertaining to the strict observance of the cease-fire of 17 December 1971 and report to the Secretary-General.

Composition:

UNMOGIP's military observers come from nine countries: Belgium, Chile, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Uruguay.

Six-month appropriation for 2006:

Approximately us$ 3.87 million.

UNEF I-First United Nations Emergency Force

Duration:

November 1956 to June 1967.

Location:

Initially the Suez Canal sector and the Sinai peninsula; later, along the Armistice Demarcation Line in the Gaza area and the Egyptian side of the international frontier in the Sinai peninsula.

Strength:

At peak: 6,073; at end: 3,400.

Fatalities:

107.

Mandate:

To secure and to supervise the cessation of hostilities, including the withdrawal of the armed forces of France, Israel, and the United Kingdom from Egyptian territory, and to serve as a buffer between the Egyptian and Israeli forces.

Composition:

Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, India, Indonesia, Norway, Sweden, and Yugoslavia.

Total cost:

Approximately us$ 214 million.

UNOGIL-United Nations Observation Group in Lebanon

Duration:

June 1958 to December 1958.

Location:

Beirut, Lebanon.

Strength:

591 military observers (maximum).

Fatalities:

None.

Mandate:

To ensure that there was no illegal infiltration of personnel or supply of arms across the Lebanese border.

Composition:

Forces from 21 countries.

Total cost:

Approximately us$ 3.7 million.

UNOC-United Nations Operation in the Congo

Duration:

July 1960 to June 1964.

Location:

Leopoldville (now Kinshasa), Republic of Congo (now Zaire).

Strength:

Peak: 19,828.

Fatalities:

250.

Mandate:

Initially, to ensure withdrawal of Belgian forces and assist the government in maintaining law and order; later, to maintain territorial integrity and independence of the Congo and to prevent the occurrence of civil war.

Composition:

Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Liberia, Malaysia, Mali, Morocco, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Sudan, Sweden, Tunisia, Yugoslavia.

Total cost:

Approximately us$ 400 million.

UNSF-United Nations Security Force in West New Guinea (West Irian)

Duration:

October 1962 to April 1963.

Location:

Hollandia, West Irian (now Jayaphra, Indonesia).

Strength:

1,576.

Fatalities:

None.

Mandate:

To maintain peace and security in the territory under the UN Temporary Executive Authority established by agreement between Indonesia and the Netherlands while the administration of the territory was transferred to Indonesia.

Composition:

Canada, Pakistan, United States.

Total cost:

Approximately us$ 26.4 million (cost borne by Netherlands and Indonesia).

UNYOM-United Nations Yemen Observations Mission

Duration:

July 1963 to September 1964.

Location:

Sana'a, Yemen.

Strength:

25 military observers; 114 members of a reconnaissance unit; 50 members of an air unit.

Fatalities:

None.

Mandate:

To observe and certify the implementation of the disengagement agreement between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Republic (now Egypt and Syria).

Composition:

Canada, Yugoslavia.

Total cost:

Approximately us$ 1.8 million (cost borne by Saudi Arabia and Egypt).

UNFICYP-United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus

Duration:

March 1964 to present.

Location:

Cyprus.

Strength:

923 troops and civilian police, and 143 international civilian personnel and local civilian staff.

Fatalities:

176.

Mandate:

To prevent a recurrence of fighting between Turkish-backed Cypriots and Greek-backed Cypriots; to contribute to the maintenance and restoration of law and order.

Composition:

The operational elements of UNFICYP are provided by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Canada, Croatia, Finland, Hungary, India, Ireland, the Netherlands, Slovakia, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay. The Argentine contingent included soldiers from Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay.

Annual cost:

Approximately us$ 46.51 million.

DOMREP-Mission of the Representative of the Secretary-General in the Dominican Republic

Duration:

May 1965 to October 1966.

Location:

Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.

Strength:

Two military observers.

Fatalities:

None.

Mandate:

To observe the situation and to report on breaches of the cease-fire between the two de facto authorities.

Composition:

None.

Total cost:

us$ 275,831 (through UN regular budget).

UNIPOM-United Nations India-Pakistan Observation Mission

Duration:

September 1965 to March 1966.

Location:

Lahore, Pakistan, and Amritsar, India (deployed along the India/Pakistan border between Kashmir and the Arabian Sea).

Strength:

96 military observers (maximum).

Fatalities:

None.

Mandate:

To supervise the cease-fire along the India/Pakistan border (except the State of Jammu and Kashmir where UNMOGIP operates) and the withdrawal of all armed personnel to the positions held before 5 August 1965.

Composition:

Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Ethiopia, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Sweden, Sri Lanka, Venezuela.

Total cost: us$ 1,713,280.

UNEF II-Second United Nations Emergency Force

Duration:

October 1973 to July 1979.

Location:

Suez Canal sector and later the Sinai peninsula.

Strength:

Peak: 6,973; end: 4,000.

Fatalities:

55.

Mandate:

To supervise the cease-fire between Egyptian and Israeli forces; later, to supervise the redeployment of those forces and act as a buffer between them.

Composition:

Australia, Austria, Canada, Finland, Ghana, Indonesia, Ireland, Nepal, Panama, Peru, Poland, Senegal, Sweden.

Total cost:

Approximately us$ 446.5 million.

UNDOF-United Nations Disengagement Observer Force

Duration:

June 1974 to present.

Location:

Syrian Golan Heights.

Strength:

1,066 troops, assisted by approximately 57 military observers.

Fatalities:

43.

Mandate:

To maintain the cease-fire between Israel and Syria; supervise the disengagement of Israeli and Syrian forces; supervise the areas of separation and limitation.

Composition:

Originally composed of Austrian and Peruvian infantry units and Canadian and Polish logistic elements. Currently composed of contingents from Austria, Canada, Japan, Nepal, Poland, and the Slovak Republic.

Annual cost:

Approximately us$ 43.71 million.

UNIFIL-United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon

Duration:

March 1978 to present.

Location:

Approximately us$ 368.5 million.

ONUCA-United Nations Observer Group in Central America

Duration:

November 1989 to January 1992.

Location:

Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua (headquarters in Tegucigalpa).

Strength:

Peak: 1,195; end: 338.

Fatalities:

None.

Mandate:

Initially, to verify the compliance of the five Central American countries with their security undertakings (the Esquipulas II Agreement, 1987) to cease aid to insurrectionist movements in the region and not to allow their territory to be used for attacks on other states; later, to monitor the demobilization of the Nicaraguan resistance (the "Contras").

Composition:

Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Ecuador, India, Ireland, Spain, Sweden, Venezuela.

Total cost:

Approximately us$ 89 million.

UNIKOM-United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission

Duration:

April 1991 to October 2003.

Location:

The demilitarized zone along the boundary between Iraq and Kuwait.

Strength:

Peak: 1,187 all ranks, including 254 military observers supported by international and local civilian staff. Due to repeated Iraqi incursions, in 1993 UNIKOM's mandate was expanded to include taking action against such incursions.

Fatalities:

Mandate:

To verify a cease-fire between the government of Morocco and the Frente Popular para la Liberación de Saguia el-Hamra y de Rio de Oro (Frente Polisario); monitor the confinement of Moroccan and Frente Polisario troops to designated locations; ensure release of all political prisoners or detainees; oversee exchange of prisoners of war; implement a repatriation program; identify and register qualified voters; organize and ensure a free referendum to enable the people of Western Sahara to exercise their right to self-determination, to choose between independence and integration with Morocco.

Composition:

Military observers and support personnel are provided by Argentina, Austria, Bangladesh, China, Croatia, Denmark Egypt, El Salvador, France, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Kenya, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, and Uruguay.

Annual cost:

Approximately us$ 47.95 million.

UNAMIC-United Nations Advance Mission in Cambodia

Duration:

October 1991 to March 1992.

Location:

Cambodia.

Strength:

1,504 military and civilian personnel.

Fatalities:

None.

Mandate:

To immediately deploy a small advance mission to assist the Cambodian parties to maintain a cease-fire while preparations were made for the larger UNTAC force. UNAMIC consisted of civilian and military liaison staff, a military mine-awareness unit, and logistics and support personnel. Its mandate was expanded in January 1992 to include training Cambodians in mine-clearing.

Composition:

Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, China, France, Germany, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Poland, Russian Federation, Senegal, Thailand, Tunisia, United Kingdom, United States, And Uruguay.

Total cost:

See UNTAC, below.

UNPROFOR-United Nations Protection Force

Duration:

March 1992 to December 1995.

Location:

Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Strength:

38,599 military personnel, 684 UN military observers, 803 civilian police, 2,017 international civilian staff, and 2,615 local staff.

Fatalities:

167.

Mandate:

In the wake of the end of the cold war, fighting broke out among ethnic and religious factions in the former Yugoslavia. In January 1992, Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali sent 50 military liaison officers to Yugoslavia to promote maintenance of cease-fire by facilitating communication. In February, although some political groups in Yugoslavia were still expressing objections to a UN plan for a peace-keeping operation, the Security Council established UNPROFOR for an initial period of 12 months to create the conditions of peace and security required for the negotiation of an overall settlement of the Yugoslav crisis. UNPROFOR's operational mandate extends to five republics of the former Yugoslavia, as indicated above. In the rapidly deteriorating situation, its mandate has been enlarged in all five republics to include such things as security at Sarajevo airport; protection of humanitarian convoys; monitoring of a "no-fly zone" banning all military flights in the airspace of Bosnia and Herzegovina; border control; the creation of "safe areas" to protect civilians from armed attack. UNPROFOR monitored the implementation of a cease-fire agreement signed by the Bosnian government and Bosnian Croat forces in February 1994. UNPROFOR also monitored the arrangements for a cease-fire negotiated between the Bosnian government and Bosnian Serb forces which became effective on 1 January 1995.

Composition:

Military and/or civilian police personnel are provided by Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Ghana, Ireland, Jordan, Kenya, Luxembourg, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, and Venezuela.

Total cost:

Approximately us$ 4.6 billion.

UNTAC-United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia

Duration:

March 1992 to September 1993.

Location:

Cambodia.

Strength:

(Peak) 22,000 military and civilian personnel.

Fatalities:

78.

Mandate:

To monitor and help implement the Paris Agreements signed in 1991 between the various political entities in Cambodia. The mandate included aspects relating to human rights, the organization and conduct of free and fair general elections, military arrangements, civil administration, the maintenance of law and order, the repatriation and resettlement of the Cambodian refugees, and rehabilitation of essential Cambodian infrastructure. During its mission the Security Council requested UNTAC to play many roles, including human rights oversight and investigation of allegations of human rights abuses during the transitional period; implementing a legal framework for the electoral process; stabilizing the security situation; and ensuring a neutral political environment conducive to free and fair elections. After elections were held in May 1993 and a newly elected Constituent Assembly began work on 14 June 1993, a withdrawal schedule for UNPROFOR was established, leaving a smaller contingent of military police officers and medical units to continue the work of mine clearance and training.

Composition:

UNTAC military and/or civilian police personnel were provided by Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Egypt, Fiji, France, Germany, Ghana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Malaysia, Morocco, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Russian Federation, Senegal, Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, Tunisia, United Kingdom, United States, and Uruguay.

Total cost:

The total cost of both UNAMIC and UNTAC for the period was approximately us$ 1,621 million.

ONUMOZ-United Nations Operation in Mozambique

Duration:

December 1992 to December 1994.

Location:

Mozambique.

Strength:

6,625 troops and military personnel, 354 military observers and 1,144 civilian police; there were also some 355 international staffand 506 local staff; in addition, during the polling, ONUMOZ sent out about 900 electoral observers.

Fatalities:

24.

Mandate:

To help implement the General Peace Agreement signed in 1992 in Rome, after 14 years of devastating civil war between the Republic of Mozambique and the Resisténcia Nacional Moçambicana (RENAMO). ONUMOZ's mandate included four important elements: political, military, electoral, and humanitarian. ONUMOZ military wing would monitor and verify the ceasefire, the separation of forces of the two parties, their demobilization and the collection, storage, and destruction of weapons. It would authorize security arrangements for vital infrastructures and provide security for United Nations and other international activities. ONUMOZ's Electoral Division would monitor and verify all aspects and stages of the electoral process. ONUMOZ's humanitarian component would function as an integrated component of ONUMOZ to make available food and other relief for distribution to soldiers in the assembly area. After successful presidential and legislative elections in October 1994, and the installation of Mozambique's new Parliament and President, ONUMOZ's mandate ended on 9 December 1994.

Composition:

The military component includes 302 military observers and some 6,250 infantry and support personnel from Argentina, Bangladesh, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Cape Verde, China, Czech Republic, Egypt, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Netherlands, Portugal, Russian Federation, Spain, Sweden, Uruguay, and Zambia.

Total cost:

Approximately us$ 471 million.

UNOSOM I-United Nations Operation in Somalia I

Duration:

April 1992 to March 1993.

Location:

Somalia.

Strength:

Originally 50 military observers; expanded to include 3,500 security personnel, and further expanded to include 719 personnel in logistical units; there were also some 200 international staff.

Fatalities:

Mandate:

To monitor a cease-fire in the capital, Mogadishu; provide protection for UN personnel, equipment, and supplies at the seaports and airports; escort deliveries of humanitarian supplies from there to distribution centers in the city and its immediate environs.

Composition:

Observers were sent from Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Fiji, Finland, Indonesia, Jordan, Morocco, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, and Zimbabwe.

Total cost:

Approximately us$ 42.9 million.

UNOSOM II-United Nations Operation in Somalia II

Duration:

March 1993 to March 1995.

Location:

Somalia.

Strength:

28,000 military personnel and 2,800 civilian staff.

Fatalities:

147.

Mandate:

To establish a secure environment throughout the whole of Somalia; provide assistance to the Somali people in rebuilding their economy and social and political life; help reestablish the country's institutional structure; monitor that all factions continued to respect the various agreements; prevent resumption of violence and, if necessary, take appropriate action against any faction that violated the cessation of hostilities; maintain control of heavy weapons; seize small arms of all unauthorized elements; secure and maintain security at all ports, airports, and lines of communications; protect personnel, installations, and equipment belonging to the UN and other international organizations; take forceful action to neutralize armed elements that attacked or threatened to attack such facilities; assist in repatriation of refugees; continue the program of mine clearance begun under UNISOM I. UNISOM II also sought to assist the Somali people in rebuilding their economy and society, based on a democratic government. In February 1994, after several violent incidents and attacks on UN soldiers, the Security Council revised the mandate to exclude use of coercive methods. UNISOM II was withdrawn in March 1995.

Composition:

Military personnel are provided by Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Botswana, Canada, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, India, Ireland, Italy, Kuwait, Malaysia, Morocco, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United States, and Zimbabwe.

Note: The United States forces deployed in Mogadishu to support UNOSOM I and UNOSOM II were not under United Nations command or authority. The Unified Task Force (UNITAF) spearheaded by the United States was deployed in Mogadishu on 9 December 1992 and included military units from Australia, Belgium, Botswana, Canada, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, India, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, and Zimbabwe.

Total cost:

Approximately us$ 1,643 million.

UNOMUR-United Nations Observer Mission in Uganda-Rwanda

Duration:

UNMIH-United Nations Mission in Haiti

Duration:

September 1993 to June 1996.

Location:

Haiti.

Strength:

1,200 troops and military support personnel, and 300 civilian police; there was also a provision for about 160 international staff, 180 local staff, and 18 UN volunteers.

Fatalities:

Mandate:

Pending the creation of a new police force, assist the government in monitoring the activities of those members of the armed forces involved in carrying out police functions; provide guidance and advice; monitor the conduct of police operations; ensure that legal requirements are fully met. However, the advance unit of UNMIH was prevented from landing at Port au Prince on 11 October 1993. After the Haitian Constitutional government was restored in October 1994, UNMIH assisted the democratic Haitian government in securing stability, training the Haitian armed forces, and creating a separate police force. UNMIH also helped the legitimate constitutional government to organize free and fair elections for the summer of 1995.

Composition:

Djibouti, France, Mali, Netherlands, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, and United States.

Total cost:

Estimated at us$ 315.8 million.

UNAMIR-United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda

Duration:

October 1993 to March 1996.

Location:

Rwanda.

Strength:

2,548 military personnel, 60 police officers, 110 international civilian staff, and 61 locally recruited civilian staff.

Fatalities:

26.

Mandate:

In the context of the Arusha peace agreement concluded in August 1993 between the government of Rwanda and the Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF), UNAMIR originally was to contribute to the establishment and maintenance of a climate conducive to the secure installation and subsequent operation of the transitional government; assure the security of the capital city, Kigali; monitor a cease-fire agreement, including establishing an expanded demilitarized zone and demobilization procedures; monitor the security situation leading up to elections; assist with mine clearance. UNAMIR would also investigate alleged noncompliance with provisions of the peace agreement and provide security for the repatriation of Rwandese refugees. It would also escort and protect humanitarian activities. After renewed fighting in April 1994, UNAMIR's mandate was altered to permit intermediary action between warring parties, and to provide security for refugees and civilians at risk. After the cease-fire and installation of the new government, UNAMIR was adjusted to ensure stability and security in the northwestern and southwestern regions of Rwanda, to monitor and encourage the return of displaced persons, and support humanitarian aid, and national reconciliation.

Composition:

At its peak strength UNAMIR was to be composed of 2,217 formed troops and 331 military observers provided by Argentina, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, Fiji, Ghana, Malawi, Mali, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Senegal, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uruguay, and Zimbabwe.

Total cost:

Estimated at us$ 437.4 million.

UNASOG-United Nations Aozou Strip Observer Group

Duration:

May 1994 to June 1994.

Location:

Aozou Strip, Republic of Chad.

Strength:

9 military observers and 6 international staff.

Fatalities:

None.

Mandate:

Established to verify the departure of the Libyan administration and forces from the Aozou Strip in accordance with the decision of the International Court of Justice. UNASOG accomplished its mandate after both Chad and Libya declared the withdrawal complete.

Total cost:

us$ 67,471.

UNMOT-United Nations Mission of Observers in Tajikistan

Duration:

December 1994 to May 2000.

Location:

Tajikistan.

Strength:

81 military observers, (as of June 1998), supported by international and local civilian staff.

Fatalities:

Mandate:

Established to monitor the implementation of the agreement between the Tajik government and the opposition on a temporary cease-fire along the Tajik-Afghan border, and to investigate reports of violations and report them to the UN and to the Joint Commission. UNMOT also served as a political liaison and coordinate services that help the efficient deployment of humanitarian assistance by the international community.

Composition:

Austria, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ghana, Hungary, Indonesia, Jordan, Nepal, Nigeria, Poland, Switzerland, Ukraine, and Uruguay.

Total cost:

Approximately us$ 50 million.

UNAVEM III-United Nations Angola Verification Mission III

Duration:

February 1995 to June 1997.

Location:

Angola.

Strength:

283 military observers, 7,869 troops and other military personnel, and 288 civilian police as of 30 June 1997.

Mandate:

On 1 February 1995 the Secretary-General recommended to the Security Council that UNAVEM III take over from UNAVEM II to help adversarial parties in Angola restore peace and achieve national reconciliation. UNAVEM III was to provide mediation between the government and the UNITA party, to monitor and confirm the provision of legitimate government administration throughout Angola, and promote national reconciliation. UNAVEM III also was to control and verify the elimination of forces, monitor the cease-fire, and ensure the neutrality of the Angolan National Police.

Composition:

Algeria, Bangladesh, Brazil, Bulgaria, Congo, Egypt, France, Guinea Bissau, Hungary, India, Jordan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mali, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, Slovak Republic, Sweden, Tanzania, Ukraine, Uruguay, Zambia.

Fatalities:

32.

Total cost:

More than us$ 800 million.

UNCRO-United Nations Confidence Restoration Operation

Duration:

March 1995 to January 1996.

Location:

Croatia.

Strength:

6,581 troops, 194 military observers and 296 civilian police, supported by international and locally recruited staff.

Fatalities:

16.

Mandate:

UNCRO replaced UNPROFOR in Croatia, and was established to carry out the functions planned in the cease-fire agreement of March 1994 and the economic agreement of December 1994. UNCRO also monitored and reported the crossing of military personnel, supplies, equipment, and weapons over international borders between Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) at the border crossings. The mandate also facilitated the delivery of humanitarian aid to Bosnia and Herzegovina through the territory of Croatia, and monitored the demilitarization of the Prevlaka peninsula.

Cost:

See UNPROFOR, above.

UNPREDEP-United Nations Preventive Deployment Force

Duration:

March 1995 to February 1999.

Location:

The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Strength:

1,040 troops, 35 military observers, and 26 civilian police, 203 local and civilian staff.

Mandate:

UNPREDEP was established on 31 March 1995 to replace UNPROFOR, but the mandate was basically the same: to monitor and report any developments in the border areas that could affect confidence and stability in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Composition:

Argentina, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, Ghana, Indonesia, Ireland, Jordan, Kenya, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Russian Federation, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, and United States.

Fatalities:

Total cost:

Approximately us$ 200 million.

UNMIBH-United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Duration:

Total cost:

Not available.

Composition:

Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Denmark, Egypt, Fiji, France, Gambia, Ghana, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Korea (Republic of), Malaysia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Portugal, Russian Federation, Samoa, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Annual cost:

us$ 476.8 million.

UNAMSIL-United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone

Duration:

October 1999 to December 2005.

Location:

Sierra Leone.

Maximum strength:

17,500 military personnel, including 260 military observers, and up to 170 police personnel.

Fatalities:

188.

Mandate:

UNAMSIL was to cooperate with the government and the other parties in implementing the Lome Peace Agreement and to assist in the implementation of the disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration plan. On 7 February 2000, the Council revised the mandate of the Mission and expanded its size, as it did once again on 19 May 2000 and 30 March 2001.

Composition:

Australia, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Cameroon, Canada, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, France, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Senegal, Slovakia, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Tanzania, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Total cost:

us$ 2.8 billion.

MONUC-United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Duration:

30 November 1999 to present.

Location:

Democratic Republic of the Congo and the subregion, including Namibia, Rwanda, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Strength:

16,920 total uniformed personnel, including 15,019 troops, 729 military observers, and 1,072 police; supported by 856 international, 1,419 local civilian personnel, and 471 UN volunteers.

Fatalities:

83.

Mandate:

After Democratic Republic of the Congo and five regional states signed the Lusaka Cease-fire Agreement in July 1999, the UN Security Council (in November 1999) set up MONUC to maintain liaison with the parties and carry out other tasks, incorporating UN personnel authorized in earlier resolutions. On 24 February 2000, the Council expanded the mission's mandate and size.

Composition:

Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Côte d'Ivoire, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, France, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Jordan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Yemen, and Zambia.

Annual cost:

us$ 1,153.89 million.

UNMEE-United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea

Duration:

31 July 2000 to present.

Location:

Eritrea and Ethiopia.

Strength :

3,359 military personnel, including 206 military observers; supported by 183 international and 226 local civilians, and 65 UN volunteers.

Fatalities :

13.

Mandate :

UMEE was established following the cessation of hostilities between Eritrea and Ethiopia in June 2000, to maintain liaison with the parties and establish the mechanism for verifying the cease-fire. In September, UNMEE's role was expanded to monitor the cessation of hostilities and assist in ensuring observance of security commitments. In August 2002, UNMEE engaged in demining in key areas to support demarcation, and provided administrative and logistical support for the Field Offices of the Boundary Commission.

Composition :

Algeria, Austria, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, India, Jordan, Kenya, Malaysia, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania, Tunisia, Ukraine, United States, Uruguay and Zambia.

Annual cost :

us $185.99 million.

UNMISET-United Nations Mission of Support in East Timor

Duration :

20 May 2002 to 20 May 2005.

Location :

East Timor.

Peak strength :

4,776 military personnel and 771 civilian police, supported by 465 international and 856 local civilians.

Fatalities :

25.

Mandate :

East Timor became an independent state on 20 May 2002. UNMISET was established by the Security Council to provide assistance to East Timor until all operational responsibilities are fully devolved to the East Timor authorities, including law enforcement and security.

Composition :

Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Croatia, Denmark, Egypt, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Ireland, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Russian Federation, Samoa, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Total cost :

Approximately us$ 565.5 million.

UNMIL-United Nations Mission in Liberia

Duration:

September 2003-present

Location:

Liberia

Strength as of 31 January 2006:

16,065 total uniformed personnel, including 14,832 troops and 205 military observers; 1,028 police supported by 549 international civilian personnel, 844 local staffand 242 United Nations volunteers.

Fatalities:

Mandate:

UNMIL was established by Security Council resolution 1509 (2003) to support the implementation of the ceasefire agreement and the peace process; protect United Nations staff, facilities and civilians; support humanitarian and human rights activities; as well as assist in national security reform, including national police training and formation of a new, restructured military.

Composition:

Argentina, Bangladesh, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Indonesia, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Moldova, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Togo, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Annual Cost:

us $760.57 million.

MINUCI-United Nations Mission in Côte d'Ivoire

Duration:

May 2003-April 2004.

Location:

Côte d'Ivoire

Strength as of 29 February 2004:

75 military observers supported by 54 international civilian personnel and 55 local staff.

Mandate:

Having determined that the situation in Côte d'Ivoire constituted a threat to international peace and security in the region, the Security Council set up, on 13 May 2003, a political mission-MINUCI-to facilitate the implementation by the Ivorian parties of an agreement signed by them (the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement) and to complement the operations of the peacekeeping force of the Economic Community of West African States and French troops. On 4 April 2004, MINUCI was replaced by a UN peacekeeping operation-the United Nations Operation in Côte d'Ivoire (UNOCI).

Composition:

Austria, Bangladesh, Benin, Brazil, Gambia, Ghana, India, Ireland, Jordan, Kenya, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, the Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, Tunisia and Uruguay.

Annual Cost:

us $29.9 million.

UNOCI-United Nations Operation in Côte d'Ivoire

Duration:

April 2004-present.

Location:

Côte d'Ivoire

Strength as of 31 January 2006:

7,594 total uniformed personnel, including 6,702 troops, 195 military observers; 697 police supported by 362 international civilian personnel, 424 local staffand 202 United Nations volunteers.

Fatalities:

Fatalities:

Mandate:

The Security Council, by its resolution 1590 of 24 March 2005, decided to establish the United Nations Mission in the Sudan (UNMIS) to support implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed by the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army on 9 January 2005; and to perform certain functions relating to humanitarian assistance, and protection and promotion of human rights.

Composition:

Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, China, Croatia, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Moldova, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Samoa, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Annual Cost:

us $969.47 million.

SOME CASE HISTORIES OF UN ACTION

The cases are arranged in order of the dates when the disputes were first brought before the UN.

The Middle East

Establishment of Israel.

In April 1947, the General Assembly, at a special session, established a Special Committee on Palestine to make recommendations for the future status of the British mandate. The resulting partition plan, which divided Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state, with an international regime for the city of Jerusalem, was adopted by the General Assembly in November of the same year. A UN Palestine Commission was established to carry out the recommendations, and the Security Council was requested to implement the plan. The date for termination of the British mandate and withdrawal of British troops was 1 August 1948. However, violent fighting broke out between the Arab nations and the Jewish community in Palestine. The Security Council thereupon established a Truce Commission consisting of Belgium, France, and the United States, while the General Assembly authorized a UN Mediator for Palestine to replace the Palestine Commission.

On 14 May 1948, the Jewish state of Israel was proclaimed. Almost immediately, the Arab nations instituted full-scale armed action. Following a four-week truce at the request of the Security Council, hostilities were renewed on 8 July. This time, the Security Council, invoking Chapter VII of the charter, ordered the governments concerned to desist from further military action and proclaimed a cease-fire.

Through the UN mediator, Count Folke Bernadotte, the Security Council then established a UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) of military observers from different countries, with headquarters in Jerusalem, and assigned it the task of patrolling the frontiers. Fighting continued, however, and Count Bernadotte was assassinated in September 1948. During its regular session in the fall of 1948, the General Assembly established a three-member Conciliation Commission (France, Turkey, and the United States) to negotiate a settlement and also established the UN Relief for Palestine Refugees (later replaced by UNRWA). Following negotiations with the acting UN mediator, Ralph Bunche, in the first half of 1949, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria signed armistice agreements. The agreements provided for mixed armistice commissions to check on their implementation. UNTSO continued in operation to observe the cease-fire and is still in existence, investigating complaints of armistice violations and reporting to the Security Council. The Conciliation Commission also continues to function, still trying to fulfill its mandate from the General Assembly to assist the parties concerned to negotiate a final settlement of all issues.

The Suez Crisis.

In July 1956, Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal. In September, after Egypt's rejection of the London Conference plan for international control of the canal, France and the United Kingdom informed the Security Council that Egypt's attitude was endangering the peace. Israel invaded Egypt's Gaza Strip the following month, and a Security Council resolution calling for a cease-fire and the withdrawal of Israeli troops was vetoed by France and the United Kingdom. France and the United Kingdom began armed intervention in the area, and thereafter the situation was handled exclusively by the General Assembly under the Uniting for Peace Resolution. In November 1956, the General Assembly established the UN Emergency Force (UNEF) to secure and supervise cessation of hostilities. Since Israel would not permit UNEF contingents on territory under its control, the force was stationed on the Egyptian side of the demarcation line. Withdrawal of British and French forces was completed by December 1956 and of Israeli forces by March 1957. The canal was cleared by April of the same year, and Egypt declared it open to international traffic (Israeli ships were barred, however).

The Six-Day War, 1967.

By the mid-1960s, the tension between Israel and the Arab countries had begun to manifest itself in frequent and sometimes major hostilities across the various armistice borders. On 18 May 1967, the United Arab Republic (UAR), which two days earlier had begun deploying troops to the armistice demarcation line in the Sinai peninsula, officially requested Secretary-General U Thant to withdraw all UNEF units from the area. After consultations with the UNEF Advisory Committee, U Thant ordered the withdrawal of the force that evening.

U Thant's prompt compliance with the UAR's request aroused severe criticism in Israel and other quarters. His view was that both legal and practical considerations required him to act without delay. In subsequent reports, he pointed out that UNEF was not an enforcement operation ordered by the Security Council but a peacekeeping operation dependent on the consent of the host country. His unilateral decision to disband the force was, however, probably the most controversial of his career as Secretary-General. Some of his critics challenged the legal validity of his stand, while many others believed that he could have used his office to try to persuade the UAR at least to agree to a postponement of its request for UNEF's withdrawal, which they felt only helped pave the way for the crisis that followed.

The UAR occupied the fortress Sharm el-Sheikh, which commands the Strait of Tiran at the mouth of the Gulf of Aqaba. On 22 May 1967, it declared the gulf closed to Israeli ships and to other ships bound for Israel with strategic goods. Israel found its sole direct access to the Red Sea blockaded and considered the blockade, together with the military agreement that the UAR had recently signed with Jordan, a justified casus belli. Regarding the assurances of help that it had received from Western countries in the course of concentrated diplomatic activity intended to avert the impending war as insufficient, it simultaneously attacked the UAR, Jordan, and Syria on 5 June. Within three days, it had deeply penetrated the territory of each country.

The Security Council, in emergency session, demanded a ceasefire on 6 June 1967. Israel announced that it would accept a ceasefire provided that the other parties accepted it. Jordan announced acceptance on 7 June, the UAR on 8 June, and Syria on 9 June, and a cease-fire accordingly took effect on 10 June. Violations of the cease-fire, especially along the Israel-Syria border, continued until 13 June, when Secretary-General U Thant was able to report the "virtual cessation" of all military activity. By then, Israel had voluntarily withdrawn its forces from much of the territory that it had occupied but had retained control of several areas regarded as essential to its security—namely, the whole of the UAR's Sinai peninsula up to the Suez Canal, including Sharm el-Sheikh and the Gaza Strip; the Jordanian part of the city of Jerusalem and the West Bank area of the Jordan River; and the Golan Heights, in Syrian territory overlooking the Sea of Galilee. On 14 June, the Security Council adopted a resolution calling upon Israel to ensure the "safety, welfare and security" of the inhabitants of the occupied areas and upon the "governments concerned" scrupulously to respect the humanitarian principles governing the treatment of prisoners of war contained in the 1949 Geneva Convention.

An emergency special session of the General Assembly, held from 19 June to 21 July 1967, failed to produce a resolution that might serve as the frame of reference for a settlement. The division of opinion between the supporters of the Arabs, including the Soviet bloc and several African and Asian countries, and the supporters of the Israeli position, including the United States and several Western countries, was too deep to be bridged. However, the General Assembly did adopt, by a vote of 99 in favor with 20 abstentions, a resolution declaring invalid Israel's proclamation on 28 June that Jerusalem would thenceforward be a unified city under Israeli administration.

Resolution 242.

For many months, the Security Council was equally unsuccessful in the attempt to devise an acceptable formula for establishing permanent peace in the area. Finally, on 22 November 1967, after weeks of quiet diplomacy and closed discussions, it adopted Resolution 242, which provided the basis of UN efforts to achieve a definitive settlement. The resolution, based on a British draft, establishes certain principles for a peaceful settlement without going into contentious specifics or prescribing priorities. The principles include withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied areas (the text deliberately avoided requesting withdrawal from "all" occupied areas, in view of Israel's declaration that it would not give up certain strategic places, including Jordanian Jerusalem); an end to states of belligerency; respect for the rights of all states in the area to peaceful existence; and an affirmation of the need to guarantee free navigation through international waterways, settle the long-standing Palestine refugee problem, and guarantee the territorial integrity and political independence of the countries involved. All parties—except, initially, Syria—accepted the formula.

The October War, 1973.

Full-scale hostilities broke out again in the Suez Canal and Israel-Syria sectors on 6 October 1973. The Security Council met four times without considering any draft resolutions and on 12 October decided to reconvene at a later date after consultations. It did so on 21 October at the request of the United States and the USSR and the next day adopted Resolution 338, which called for the immediate cessation of all military activities. It also decided that negotiations between the concerned parties for a just and durable peace should begin at once. China did not participate in this or other votes on the question. Israel, Syria, and Egypt agreed to comply, each stating conditions.

A second UN Emergency Force (UNEF II) was established by the Security Council on 25 October 1973. Its personnel were to be drawn from member states, with the exception of the permanent members of the council, and its eventual strength was to be 7,000. As the force was assembled, it took up stations in zones of disengagement between Israel and Egypt.

A peace conference on the Middle East was convened in December 1973 in Geneva under the auspices of the UN and the co-chairmanship of the United States and the USSR. The work of the conference came to fruition at kilometer 101 on the Cairo-Suez road on 18 January 1974, when the chief of staff of the Egyptian Armed Forces and the chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces signed an Agreement on Disengagement of Forces, with the UNEF commander as witness. The agreement came into effect on 25 January 1974.

It was not until 31 May 1974, in Geneva, that Syria and Israel signed an Agreement on Disengagement, which called for the creation of a UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) and specified that it did not represent a peace agreement but a step toward peace. On the same day, after the signing, the Security Council adopted a resolution jointly sponsored by the United States and the USSR that set up UNDOF. China and Iraq did not participate in the vote. The strength of UNDOF was to be 1,250, its components to be drawn from members of the UN that were not permanent members of the Security Council. In 2006, UNDOF comprised some 1,000 troops, provided by Austria, Canada, Japan, Nepal, Poland, and the Slovak Republic, deployed between the Israeli and Syrian forces on the Golan Heights.

Developments in Lebanon.

On 15 March 1978, following a Palestinian commando raid in Israel, Israeli forces invaded southern Lebanon. On 19 March, the Security Council called on Israel to cease its military action against Lebanese territory and decided to establish a UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) to confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces and assist the Lebanese government in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area.

The mandate of the 6,000-man UNIFIL has been extended by the Security Council since then. Perhaps its greatest crisis occurred on the morning of 6 June 1982, when Israeli forces, comprising two mechanized divisions with air and naval support, moved into Lebanese territory, bypassing positions occupied by UNIFIL. The Israeli invasion was followed by a few days of intensive exchanges of fire with PLO and Syrian forces and by Israeli air attacks on targets in the Beirut area. In subsequent days and weeks, the Security Council met numerous times to demand a cease-fire, withdrawal of Israeli forces, and respect for the rights of the civilian population.

UNIFIL's mandate was enlarged to extend protection and humanitarian assistance to the population of the area; an international survey mission was established to assess the situation on the spot; a UN observer group was deployed in and around Beirut to ensure that a cease-fire was fully observed by all concerned; and, at Lebanon's request, a 4,000-man multinational force, composed of contingents from France, Italy, and the United States (and later the United Kingdom), was deployed in the Beirut area. The force was withdrawn in 1984.

As of 31 January 2006, UNIFIL comprised some 1,980 troops, provided by France, Ghana, India, Ireland, Italy, Poland, and Ukraine. It has continued to assist the Lebanese government in ensuring the return of its effective authority in southern Lebanon.

The Question of Palestinian Rights.

Concurrently with its consideration of the situation in the Middle East and of the role of peacekeeping forces in the region, the UN has been concerned with the question of Palestinian rights. In 1968, the General Assembly established the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories, which reports annually to it, and in 1974, it reaffirmed "the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people" to unhindered self-determination, national independence, and sovereignty. The General Assembly recognized the Palestinian people as a principal party in the establishment of a just and durable peace in the Middle East, and it invited the PLO to participate as an observer in its work and in UN conferences.

In 1975, the General Assembly established the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and asked it to recommend a program for the implementation of those rights. The committee recommended that a timetable be established by the Security Council for the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from the areas occupied in 1967. The evacuated areas, with all properties and services intact, would be taken over by the UN, which, with the cooperation of the League of Arab States, would subsequently hand them over to the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people. The General Assembly has endorsed the committee's recommendations at successive sessions since 1976, but the Security Council has not acted on them.

An International Conference on the Question of Palestine, held in Geneva in the summer of 1983, adopted a declaration on Palestine and a program of action for the achievement of Palestinian rights, which was later endorsed by the General Assembly. The conference also called for the convening of an international conference on the Middle East, a proposal which the General Assembly endorsed.

At its 1987 session, the General Assembly reaffirmed its conviction that "the question of Palestine is the core of the conflict in the Middle East and that no comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the region will be achieved without the full exercise by the Palestinian people of its inalienable national rights and the immediate, unconditional and total withdrawal of Israel from all the Palestinian and other Arab occupied territories." The General Assembly again called for the convening of an international peace conference on the Middle East under the auspices of the UN and at the invitation of the Secretary-General, with the participation of the five permanent members of the Security Council and all the parties to the Arab-Israeli conflict, including the PLO.

Korea

At the end of World War II, the Allied powers agreed that Soviet troops would accept the Japanese surrender north of the 38th parallel in Korea and that United States forces would accept it south of that line. The two occupying powers established a joint commission to set up a provisional government for the country, but the commission could not come to an agreement, and the United States brought the matter to the General Assembly in September 1947. In November, the General Assembly created a Temporary Commission on Korea to facilitate nationwide elections. However, since the commission was denied access to northern Korea, it was only able to supervise elections in the southern half of the country. These elections took place in May 1948, and in August, the United States transferred governmental and military functions to the duly elected government of the Republic of Korea (ROK). Meanwhile, a separate government was established in the north. In December 1948, the General Assembly, over the objection of the USSR, established a seven-member UN Commission on Korea (UNCOK) to replace the Temporary Commission and to seek reunification.

On 25 June 1950, both UNCOK and the United States informed the Security Council that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) had attacked the ROK that morning. The council met on the same day and (the USSR being absent at the time in protest against a council decision on Chinese representation) declared the attack to be a breach of the peace. It called for a cease-fire, withdrawal of DPRK forces to the 38th parallel, and the assistance of member states to the ROK. As the fighting continued, the Security Council, on 27 June, recommended that UN members furnish assistance to the ROK to repel the attack and restore peace and security. On the same day, the United States announced that it had ordered its own air and sea forces to give cover and support to the South Korean troops. On July 7, the Security Council voted to recommend that states make forces available to a UN Unified Command under the United States. (It should be noted that although the council had used the language of Chapter VII of the charter—"breach of the peace," etc.—it did not specifically invoke the chapter itself or use its constitutional power thereunder to order all states to comply with its decision.) In all, 16 nations supplied troops: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand, Turkey, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States; the ROK also placed its troops under the UN Command.

On 1 August 1950, the USSR returned to the Security Council (having by then been absent for six months) and declared that all the actions and decisions that had previously been taken by the council were illegal. On 6 November, the USSR vetoed a resolution proposed by the United States. As a result of the ensuing deadlock, the General Assembly virtually took over the handling of the entire situation (the Security Council even agreeing unanimously, on 31 January 1951, to remove the item from its agenda). The legalistic device by which the General Assembly voted itself competent to continue with collective measures that under the charter are the exclusive preserve of the Security Council was the Uniting for Peace Resolution.

Even before the Security Council became deadlocked, the General Assembly had considered an agenda item entitled "The Problem of the Independence of Korea." Under this item, it established the Commission for the Unification and Rehabilitation of Korea (UNCURK) to replace UNCOK. Then, on 6 November 1950, events were given a new twist when the People's Republic of China entered the war on the side of the DPRK. The General Assembly promptly added the agenda item entitled "Intervention of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China in Korea." Under this item, the General Assembly established the UN Korean Reconstruction Agency (UNKRA) and a three-member Cease-fire Group that included the president of the General Assembly to determine a basis for ending hostilities. Following China's refusal to cooperate, the General Assembly, in February 1951, adopted a resolution that that government had engaged in aggression. It also established a Good Offices Committee and an Additional Measures Committee to supplement the Cease-fire Group. Truce negotiations began in July 1951, but fighting continued until 1953, when an armistice agreement was signed on 27 July. A year later, the General Assembly called for the political conference that had been provided for in the armistice agreement. The conference was held between April and June 1954, but it failed to resolve problems and negotiate reunification of the country. UNKRA ceased operations in 1960, and UNCURK was dissolved by a consensus vote of the 1973 General Assembly.

On 18 November 1975, the General Assembly adopted two resolutions—one with Western support, the other with that of the Communist states—which were to some extent conflicting but which both favored dissolution of the UN Command at an early date. The first resolution called for negotiations among the DPRK, the ROK, China, and the United States. The second called for negotiations between the DPRK and the United States. The DPRK declared that it would not participate in negotiations with the ROK.

As of April 2006, the UN Command was still in operation, and the Military Armistice Commission (MAC), set up to implement the armistice terms, continued to meet regularly in the Joint Security Area, commonly known as the Truce Village of Panmunjom.

Kashmir

Kashmir (officially, Jammu and Kashmir) was originally one of the princely states of British India. Under the partition plan and the Indian Independence Act of 1947, it became free to accede to either India or Pakistan, on both of which it borders. On 1 January 1948, India reported to the Security Council that tribesmen were invading Kashmir with the active assistance of Pakistan. After the invasion had begun, the maharajah of Kashmir had requested accession to India and India had accepted on the understanding that, once normal conditions were restored, the question of accession would be settled by a plebiscite. Pakistan declared that Kashmir's accession to India was illegal.

The Security Council, after asking the parties to mediate, called for withdrawal of Pakistani nationals, reduction of Indian forces, and arrangement of a plebiscite on Kashmir's accession to India. A UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) was sent to mediate in July 1948. By 1949, UNCIP had effected a cease-fire and was able to state that principles on a plebiscite had been accepted by both governments. In July 1949, agreement was reached on a cease-fire line, and UNCIP appointed a group of military observers to watch for violations. However, it was unable to reach agreement on terms for the demilitarization of Kashmir prior to a plebiscite.

In March 1951, after several attempts at further negotiation had failed, the Security Council decided to continue the observer group—now called the UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP)—to supervise the cease-fire within Kashmir itself. Despite continued mediation, the differences between the parties remained. The Security Council repeatedly considered the matter without achieving appreciable progress.

In August 1965 there was a sudden outbreak of serious hostilities. UNMOGIP reported clashes between the regular armed forces of both India and Pakistan, and fighting continued into September, although the Security Council had twice called for a cease-fire. Following a report that fighting had spread to the international border between India and West Pakistan, the council, on September 20, requested that both sides issue orders for a cease-fire within two days and withdraw their forces to their previously held positions. The cease-fire was accepted by both states, but continuous complaints of violations were made by each side. Accordingly, the Council requested Secretary-General U Thant to increase the size of UNMOGIP and to establish the UN India-Pakistan Observation Mission (UNIPOM) on the India-West Pakistan border.

On 5 November 1965, the Security Council urged that a meeting between the parties be held as soon as possible and that a plan for withdrawal containing a time limit for execution be developed. U Thant appointed a representative to meet with authorities of both countries on the question. On 17 February 1966, he informed the council that a plan and rules for withdrawals had been worked out. He also stated that, on 10 January, the prime minister of India and the president of Pakistan had agreed at Tashkent, where they had met at the initiative of the USSR, that their respective forces would be withdrawn to their original positions by 25 February. Thus, though the crisis remains quiescent, the conflict itself is unresolved, and UNMOGIP is still in operation, with some 40 military observers stationed in the area.

In 1971, another conflict between the two countries broke out, this time in connection with the civil strife in East Pakistan, which later became the independent state of Bangladesh. As nearly 10 million refugees streamed into neighboring India, tension increased in the subcontinent. U Thant conveyed his serious concern to the president of Pakistan and the prime minister of India and, with the consent of the host governments, set up two large-scale humanitarian programs. One of these, with the UN high commissioner for refugees as the focal point, was for the relief of the refugees in India. The other was for assistance to the distressed population in East Pakistan. U Thant's actions were subsequently unanimously approved by the General Assembly.

On 20 July 1971, the Secretary-General drew the attention of the president of the Security Council to the steady deterioration of the situation in the region, which he described as a potential threat to peace and security. He noted that humanitarian, economic, and political problems were involved, and he indicated that the UN should play a more forthright role to avert further deterioration. In October of that year, he offered his good offices to the governments of India and Pakistan, but India declined. Clashes broke out between the two countries, and on 3 December, U Thant notified the Security Council under Article 99 of the charter that the situation in the region constituted a threat to international peace and security.

After a cease-fire had put an end to the fighting on 17 December 1971, the Security Council adopted a resolution demanding the strict observance of the cease-fire until withdrawal of all armed forces to their previous positions should take place. The council also called for international assistance to relieve the suffering and for the appointment of a special UN representative to lend his good offices for the solution of humanitarian problems. During 1972, the refugees, with UN assistance, returned to their homeland. The UN relief operation helped pave the way for the rehabilitation of the shattered economy of Bangladesh, which became a member of the UN in 1974.

As of 31 January 2006, UNMOGIP consisted of 44 military observers from nine countries: Belgium, Chile, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Italy, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Uruguay.

The Congo (Zaire)

One week after the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire), a former Belgian colony, had become independent on 30 June 1960, troops of the Force Publique mutinied against the Belgian officers, demanding higher pay and promotions. As violence and general disorder spread rapidly throughout the country, Belgium rushed troops to the area to protect its extensive mining interests. On 11 July, Katanga, the richest province of the country by virtue of its Belgian-controlled copper mines, proclaimed its secession from the new state. On the following day, President Kasavubu and Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba appealed for UN military assistance "to protect the national territory against acts of aggression committed by Belgian metropolitan troops."

In a series of meetings, the Security Council called for the withdrawal of Belgian troops and authorized Secretary-General Hammarskjöld to provide the Congolese government with such military and technical assistance as might be necessary until the national security forces, through the efforts of the government with UN assistance, might be able, in the government's opinion, to meet their tasks fully.

Within two days, contingents of a UN force provided by a number of countries, including Asian and African states, began to arrive in the Congo, followed by UN civilian experts to help ensure the continued operation of essential services. Over the next four years, the task of the UN Operation in the Congo (UNOC) was to help the Congolese government restore and maintain the political independence and territorial integrity of the country, maintain law and order, and to put into effect a wide and long-term program of training and technical assistance.

At its peak strength, the UN force totaled nearly 20,000 officers and men. The instructions of the Security Council to the force were strengthened early in 1961 after the assassination of Lumumba in Katanga. The force was to protect the Congo from outside interference, particularly by evacuating foreign mercenaries and advisers from Katanga and preventing clashes and civil strife, by force if necessary as a last resort.

Following the reconvening of the Congolese parliament in August 1961 under UN auspices, the main problem was the attempted secession, led and financed by foreign elements, of the province of Katanga, where secessionist gendarmes under the command of foreign mercenaries clashed with UN forces. Secretary-General Hammarskjöld died on 17 September 1961, when his plane crashed on the way to Ndola (in what is now Zambia), where talks were to be held for the cessation of hostilities.

In February 1963, after Katanga had been reintegrated into the national territory of the Congo, a phasing out of the force was begun, aimed at its termination by the end of that year. At the request of the Congolese government, however, the General Assembly authorized the stay of a reduced number of troops for a further six months. The force was completely withdrawn by 30 June 1964. Civilian aid continued in the largest single program of assistance undertaken by the UN up to that time, with some 2,000 experts at work in the nation.

Cyprus

Cyprus was granted independence from British rule in 1960 through agreements signed by the United Kingdom, Greece, and Turkey. Under these agreements, Cyprus was given a constitution containing certain unamendable provisions guaranteeing specified political rights to the Turkish minority community. The three signatory powers were constituted guarantors of Cyprus's independence, each with the right to station troops permanently on the island.

The granting of independence had been preceded by a prolonged conflict between the Greek and Turkish communities on the future status of Cyprus. The Greek Cypriots, comprising 80 percent of the total population, originally had wanted some form of union with Greece, thereby provoking a hostile reaction among the Turkish Cypriots, who countered by demanding partition. Each side was supported in its aims by the country of its ethnic origin. Independence did nothing to alleviate dissension on the island. Both sides were dissatisfied with the constitution that had been granted them, but their aims were diametrically opposed. The Turks wanted partition or a type of federal government, whereas the Greeks wanted a constitution free of outside controls and of provisions perpetuating the division between the two communities.

After three years of continuous tension, the Cyprus government, under Greek Cypriot president Makarios, complained to the Security Council on 27 December 1963 that Turkey was interfering in its internal affairs and committing acts of aggression. Against a background of mounting violence on the island, the council considered the matter but did not immediately take any peacekeeping action.

With the consent of Cyprus, British troops had been trying to restore order during the crisis. However, in mid-February 1964, the United Kingdom informed the Security Council that its efforts to keep the peace would have to be augmented. Accordingly, on 4 March 1964, the council unanimously authorized the establishment of the UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) for a three-month period and at the same time requested Secretary-General U Thant to designate a UN mediator to promote a substantive settlement. UNFICYP became operational on 27 March 1964, with a mandate to prevent the recurrence of fighting, help maintain law and order, and promote a return to normal conditions.

A coup d'état on 15 July 1974 by Greek Cypriot and Greek elements opposed to President Makarios forced him to flee the country. This was quickly followed by military intervention by Turkey, whose troops subsequently established Turkish Cypriot control over the northern part of Cyprus. Four days after a cease-fire went into effect on 16 August 1974, the UN high commissioner for refugees was asked to coordinate humanitarian assistance in Cyprus, where more than 200,000 persons had been dislocated as a result of the hostilities.

Concurrently with the functioning of UNFICYP, the UN has been active in promoting a peaceful solution and an agreed settlement of the Cyprus problem. This task, first entrusted to a mediator, has been carried out since 1968 through the good offices of the Secretary-General. Within that framework, a series of intercommunal talks between representatives of the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities, as well as high-level meetings, were held, beginning in 1974, in an effort to reach a just and lasting solution. The intercommunal talks were discontinued after the Turkish Cypriot authorities, on 15 November 1983, proclaimed a "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus," a step which the Security Council called legally invalid. Secretary-General Pérez de Cuéllar met separately with representatives of the two sides in an effort to resume the negotiating process. Settlement talks headed by the UN continued in the 1990s.

UNFICYP has continued its task of supervising the cease-fire and maintaining surveillance over the buffer zone between the cease-fire lines. As of 31 January 2006, the force numbered 923 total uniformed personnel, including 854 troops and 69 police; supported by 33 international civilian personnel and 110 local civilian staff.

Apartheid in South Africa

The racial policy of apartheid practiced by the South African government not only violated the political and human rights of its African citizens, it also destabilized the entire southern African region. The government of South Africa's policies towards the independence of surrounding African nations, the flight of South African freedom fighters to those countries, and the possibility that the technologically advanced government of South Africa might acquire nuclear capabilities, led the United Nations to consider apartheid in South Africa as a real threat to international peace and security. More than four decades of effort by the United Nations bore fruit in April 1994, when Nelson Mandela was elected president of South Africa in democratic elections open to South African citizens of all races.

The racial policies of the government of South Africa were a major concern of the UN since its earliest years. Over more than four decades, the General Assembly and the Security Council called for measures by the international community aimed at bringing about the end of apartheid, an Afrikaans word meaning "separateness," and at enabling the Africans of South Africa, who outnumber the whites by more than 4 to 1, to exercise political, economic, and all other rights in their country. In the words of a 1982 General Assembly resolution, the goal of the UN with regard to South Africa was "the total eradication of apartheid and the establishment of a democratic society in which all the people of South Africa as a whole, irrespective of race, color, sex or creed, will enjoy equal and full human rights and fundamental freedoms and participate freely in the determination of their destiny."

The question of South Africa's racial policies was first raised in the General Assembly in 1946, when India complained that the South African government had enacted legislation discriminating against South Africans of Indian origin. The General Assembly expressed the view that the treatment of Indians in South Africa should conform with South Africa's obligations under agreements concluded between that country and India and its obligations under the UN Charter.

The wider question of racial conflict in South Africa arising from that government's apartheid policies was placed on the General Assembly's agenda in 1952. On that question and on India's original complaint, the South African government maintained that the matter was essentially within its domestic jurisdiction and that, under the charter, the UN was barred from considering it.

The Security Council took up the question for the first time in 1960, following an incident at Sharpeville on 21 March in which South African police fired on peaceful demonstrators protesting the requirement that all Africans carry "passes"; 69 people were killed and 180 wounded. The council stated that the situation in South Africa had led to international friction and, if continued, might endanger international peace and security. The council called on the South African government to abandon its policy of apartheid, which it termed "a crime against the conscience and dignity of mankind."

In order to keep the racial policies of South Africa under review, the General Assembly decided, in 1962, to establish the Special Committee Against Apartheid. The committee, composed of 18 members, was subsequently given a wider mandate to review all aspects of South Africa's policies of apartheid and the international repercussions of those policies.

The committee's work included the following activities: holding of meetings and hearings; the sending of missions to member states to gain support for the struggle against apartheid; the organization of international conferences, special sessions, and seminars; and the implementation of the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council, particularly by promoting sports, cultural, consumer, and other boycotts and, with the UN Center Against Apartheid, cooperating with governments, inter-governmental organizations, trade unions, women's organizations, religious leaders, student and youth movements, and antiapartheid groups in mobilizing international public opinion in support of action against apartheid.

The General Assembly also established, in 1965, the UN Trust Fund for South Africa, which, through voluntary contributions, made grants to organizations for legal aid to persons persecuted under South Africa's apartheid laws, relief to such persons and their families, and relief for refugees from South Africa. In 1967, the General Assembly established the UN Educational and Training Program for Southern Africa, which granted scholarships to students from South Africa and Namibia for study and training abroad.

Arms Embargo and Other Sanctions.

A voluntary arms embargo against South Africa was instituted by the Security Council in 1963. Noting that some of the arms supplied to South Africa were being used to further its racial policies and repress the African people, the council called on all states to stop the sale and shipment of arms, ammunition of all types, and military vehicles to South Africa. Subsequently, in 1970, the Security Council condemned violations of the arms embargo and called on all states to strengthen and implement it unconditionally; withhold the supply of all vehicles, equipment, and spare parts for use by South African military and paramilitary forces; revoke all licenses and patents granted for South African manufacture of arms, aircraft, or military vehicles; prohibit investment or technical assistance for arms manufacture; and cease military cooperation with South Africa.

Both the Security Council and the General Assembly condemned the shooting, on 26 June 1976, of Africans, including schoolchildren, demonstrating in the township of Soweto.

The following year, the Security Council made the arms embargo against South Africa mandatory, the first time that such action had been taken against a member state under Chapter VII of the charter, which provides for enforcement action in the face of threats to international peace and security. Concerned that South Africa was at the threshold of producing nuclear weapons, the Security Council also decided that states should refrain from any cooperation with South Africa in the manufacture and development of such weapons. It established a committee to keep under constant review the implementation by states of the mandatory arms embargo.

Meanwhile, the General Assembly, in 1970, urged states to terminate diplomatic and other official relations with South Africa, as well as economic and all other types of cooperation, as an expression of international rejection of South Africa's policy of apartheid, which the General Assembly called "a crime against humanity." In 1973, the General Assembly adopted the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (see the section on Racial Discrimination in the chapter on Human Rights).

In 1974, the General Assembly rejected South Africa's credentials and recommended that South Africa be totally excluded from participation in all international organizations and conferences held under UN auspices until it abandoned its policies of apartheid.

The International Conference on Sanctions Against South Africa, held in Paris in May 1981, called for further international action to isolate South Africa, including the imposition, under Chapter VII of the charter, of sanctions "as the most appropriate and effective means to ensure South Africa's compliance with the decisions of the United Nations." The need for sanctions, including disengagement of transnational corporations operating in South Africa and disinvestment in companies doing business with South Africa, remained the focal point of UN efforts to end that country's policies of apartheid.

Other measures included a sports boycott, embodied in the International Declaration Against Apartheid in Sports, which was adopted by the General Assembly in 1977, and the International Convention Against Apartheid in Sports, which was adopted in 1985 and came into force on 4 April 1988.

Other Action.

Other action taken by the UN in support of the African majority of South Africa and against that country's policies of apartheid included:

condemnation of South Africa's policy of destabilization in southern Africa through its armed incursions into neighboring independent African states that support and assist the efforts of the African majority of South Africa;
rejection of South Africa's policy of establishing "homelands" as "independent" entities within South Africa where Africans are forced to resettle;
recognition of the African liberation movements of South Africa—the African National Congress of South Africa (ANC) and the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC), both banned by South Africa—as "the authentic representatives of the over-whelming majority of the South African people"; and support for persons imprisoned or detained in South Africa for their opposition to apartheid.

The Final Stages.

In April 1989, the Special Committee against Apartheid and the Intergovernmental Group to Monitor the Supply of Shipping of Oil and Petroleum Products to South Africa met in New York and recommended that the Security Council impose a mandatory oil embargo. It also recommended that pending action by the Security Council, all oil-producing, shipping, and handling states should enact legislation to stop the flow of oil to South Africa.

On 12–14 December 1989, the General Assembly held a Special Session on Apartheid and its Destructive Consequences in South Africa. It adopted by consensus a historic declaration which listed the steps that the South African regime should take to restore political and human rights in that country. It suggested guidelines for negotiations and for drawing up a new constitution based on the principles of the United Nations Charter and the Declaration of Human Rights. The declaration called upon all South Africans, as a matter of urgency, to join together to negotiate an end to the apartheid system and agree on all the measures necessary to transform their country into a nonracial democracy.

In February 1990, in a dramatic development, most political prisoners in South Africa, including Nelson Mandela, deputy president of the ANC, were released, and the ANC, PAC, and the South African Communist Party were recognized by the government. On 22 June 1990, Nelson Mandela addressed the General Assembly, thanking the United Nations for its efforts to secure his release and that of other South African political prisoners. He urged the UN and individual governments to continue the sanctions which they had imposed on South Africa. In May 1990, the government of South Africa and the ANC adopted the Groote Schurr Minute, which granted indemnity to political exiles and refugees, and paved the way for their return to South Africa. In August 1990, both parties agreed to the Pretoria Minute under which the government undertook to review emergency and security matters, while the ANC suspended armed actions.

On 1 February 1991, South African president F. W. de Klerk announced that the basic laws of apartheid would be repealed during that session of Parliament. He also issued a Manifesto for the New South Africa, stating that the new nation should be based on justice. The basic laws of apartheid were repealed on 5 June 1991, and later that month a peace summit was held by religious and business leaders, and some of the major parties to political violence. As a result, a preparatory committee, including the government and the ANC, was established and became known as the National Peace Initiative. In August 1991, the National Peace Initiative released a draft national peace accord. Also in August, the government and the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) agreed on a plan for the voluntary repatriation of an estimated 40,000 South African refugees and political exiles.

In spite of the commencement of formal negotiations on constitutional reforms in December 1991, not all political parties participated and violence in the townships continued to escalate. In June 1992, 50 people died in the Boipatong massacre and the ANC suspended its participation in the talks until the government took more decisive action to put an end to the violence.

In July 1992, several political players in South Africa were invited to come and apprise the Security Council of the situation in their country. Subsequently, the Security Council authorized the Secretary-General to appoint a special representative to go to South Africa to find out first hand what was going on in the country, so that it could be determined how the international community could assist in bringing an end to the violence and create conditions for a peaceful transition in South Africa. As a result of this mission, the Security Council adopted Resolution 772 (1992) authorizing the Secretary-General to deploy the UN Observer Mission in South Africa (UNOMSA), charged with the task of assisting with strengthening the structures set up under the 1991 peace accords. The resolution also invited other international organizations such as the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the Commonwealth and the European Union to consider deploying their own observers in coordination with the United Nations. The first group of 50 UNOMSA observers was deployed in September 1992. It was widely agreed by all parties in South Africa that the presence of international observers greatly helped to reduce political tension, limit violence, and improve the climate for the negotiation process.

In April 1993, a new negotiating framework, the Multiparty Negotiating Council (MPNC) brought together 26 parties and was the most representative gathering in the history of South Africa. After several months of protracted negotiations, in November 1993, the MPNC adopted a number of constitutional principles and institutions to guide the country during a transitional period lasting until 27 April 1999. This interim constitution set forth plans for elections of a Constitutional Assembly that would draft a new national constitution. In response to all the positive developments, on 8 October 1993, in its Resolution 48/1 (1993), the 184-member General Assembly unanimously ended its 31-year ban on economic and other ties with South Africa in the areas of trade, investment, finance, travel, and transportation. Member states were asked to lift the sanctions they had imposed over the years under numerous UN resolutions and decisions. On 15 Ocober 1993, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to South African president F. W. de Klerk and ANC president Nelson Mandela.

Although incidents of violence continued, and some parties to the negotiations threatened to withdraw from the election process, the elections were held successfully from 26–28 April 1994. At the request of the South African Transitional Executive Committee, the Security Council increased the UNOMSA contingent to approximately 1,800 during the election period. Another approximately 900 international observers from foreign governments and international organizations also were deployed across the country to observe the balloting. The UNOMSA observers determined whether voters enjoyed free access to voting stations, whether the secrecy of the vote had been guaranteed, and that ballot boxes had been properly sealed, protected, and transported. It also witnessed the counting of the ballots and the communication of the results to South Africa's Independent Electoral Commission, the body responsible for organizing, administering, and monitoring all aspects of the elections to verify that they were free and fair.

A New Era Dawns.

On 27 April 1994 the new six-color flag of a South Africa liberated from apartheid was unfurled at United Nations headquarters in New York. On 10 May 1994, Nelson Rolihlala Mandela was inaugurated as the new president of the Republic of South Africa. On 25 May 1994, the Security Council lift ed the mandatory arms embargo it had imposed on South Africa in 1977. On 21 June 1994, the General Assembly, in its Resolution 48/258 (1994), declared that the mandate of the Special Committee against Apartheid had been successfully concluded, and terminated its existence. By the same resolution, it removed the agenda item on the elimination of apartheid from the agenda of its next (49th) session. On 23 June 1994, South Africa was welcomed back to full participation in the work of the General Assembly, after 20 years of banishment.

Worldmark Encyclopedia of Nations