StrategyPage has an interesting article about what troops are actually doing the U.N. peacekeeping duties around the world. Where the bullets are actually flying, those peacekeeping duties are dominated by South Asian troops. The European, Japanese, and Korean troops that are participating in these duties tend to be in the relatively safe areas, especially behind the lines in logistics roles:
The wealthier nations don’t like to send their own troops, because such missions are not politically popular. Sometimes they do anyway, but the politicians pay the price, and often pull the plug on the effort if it causes too much negative feedback from the voters. But for the South Asian nations, the peacekeeping is a source of national pride. Even the losses (123 Indians, 95 Pakistanis, 80 Bangladeshis and 56 Nepalis killed so far) do not discourage the folks back home, but simply reinforce the honorable and courageous nature of the service.
Pondering this, I realized that the U.N. is effectively an agency for mercenaries — the U.N. pays attractive wages and benefits for soldiers to do its “dirty work", and the rich nations pay for it. The U.S. and a few of our allies are exceptions to this general pattern, but otherwise it holds quite well. The fact that the U.N. is the paymaster (and not the rich nations directly) apparently puts enough makeup on the otherwise unattractive notion of using mercenaries so that the oh-so-moral rich nations (I’m thinking especially of Europe here, and most especially of France and Germany) can feel good about it. But wash off that makeup and look at the simple facts: those South Asian soldiers are paid (albeit indirectly) to do the fighting that the rich nations can’t muster the cojones to do themselves…
Through my own reading of history, I associate the use of mercenaries (and especially a dependence on mercenaries) with societies or cultures that are near the end of their rope. Prior to reading this article, I hadn’t thought of the U.N. as a mercenary agency. Now that I am, I’m also wondering what this portends for (especially) Europe…
In the old blog, Anonymous said:
ReplyDeleteIt is good to see you back writing again. Keep it up please.