It's the new apartheid. Western governments unable to endanger the lives of their boys are increasingly relying on troops from the developing world to carry out UN peacekeeping missions around the world. And Third World governments, who make money out of the business, are neck deep in the conspiracy.
The UN pays a flat rate of about $1,000 a month per officer to the governments involved. With over 3,000 Indian personnel in war-torn Sierra Leone, the Indian government stands to get a cool $3 million a month, at least. Says a senior UN administrator, "For countries like Nigeria, India, Pakistan and Nepal, UN reimbursements to the government are a great source of foreign exchange since they are meant to compensate the government as it continues to pay the soldier's salary - which in poorer countries can be as little as $100 per month."
Not that the soldiers have much to cheer about. "Obviously, all of this $3 million is not disbursed immediately among the troops," says former UN force commander in Yugoslavia, Lt Gen Satish Nambiar (retd). "Some of it gets kept back for wear and tear of equipment by the Indian government."
How much is not clear. But what did come to light during the UN peacekeeping mission to Cambodia in the early '90s was that Indian peacekeepers were being given much less than their entitlements by the Indian government. So much so that they were even forced to borrow from other contingents. Confirms Nambiar, "Too much of this money was being held back by the government as part of 'wear and tear' but all that has been sorted out now."
And if war is good for business, then peace is even better. Says a former peacekeeper, "The government makes profits from UN missions as the UN pays for all equipment in dollars including locally-sourced stuff. The Indian government is able to modernise its own equipment in India with much of this money."
Ideological factors have little significance in the decision to go on a mission. "Everyone's in it for the money," says Nambiar. "There is often an oblique or direct mercenary purpose. Altruism plays little part."
If "live" Indian soldiers were not being given their due by their own government, then a dead Indian soldier counted for even less as far as the UN was concerned. Says Nambiar, "When a person died on a mission, the UN made compensation for loss of life at different scales for different countries. And compensation for Indians was less than for western countries." This was only rectified in the early '90s after the government made a fuss.
And certainly in Lebanon, a recently-returned Indian officer reports he was paid $2,200 a month. But this did not compare with his Italian counterparts, who were getting about double that, he complained.
If talking of peacekeeping is beginning to sound like a shopping expedition, perhaps that says more about the decreasing relevance of the UN as a tool for world peace than about those who go to keep peace.
After the Cold War, European countries and the US in particular have been reluctant to send troops to keep peace in intra-state conflicts where enemy lines are blurred and warlords change their minds and allegiances every few hours. "The casualties suffered by US forces in Somalia in 1993 strengthened American reluctance to participate in peace enforcement missions," writes David Isenberg in USA Today. TV coverage of one of 18 US soldiers killed being dragged across the streets of Mogadishu had a numbing effect on the US psyche. (India has lost 89 soldiers on peacekeeping duties till Sierra Leone.) The Clinton administration could not risk any more casualties and pulled its troops out of the country.
And now only fools (read Indians and other poorer countries) go where angels (read western armies) fear to tread. India also continues to tread recklessly as part of its lobbying efforts to gain a permanent seat on the Security Council. "Western countries only go where their direct interests are served. That isn't how to do it," says Nambiar. But it is debatable whether India is not doing it for similar motivations.
Western countries are beginning to view private military companies as a viable option to take the place of their own nationals. Though PMCs, as they are called, have existed for a while, they have become more visible with the increased capitalism and privatisation worldwide. Businesses are undertaking new investments on a global scale and would like their interests protected from local conflicts. "It's no surprise that national and corporate leaders are choosing help from whatever quarter is available. In this sense, regimes turn to PMCs because they cannot trust their own forces or their forces are in disarray," writes Isenberg.
Nambiar is scathing of these forces. "It is unethical. In Yugoslavia, you had PMCs training Croats and the Muslim army. If it had happened while the UN was still there, it would have been terrible." But they do provide an option. And the death of a mercenary would not cause the same heartburn as that of a soldier from the national army.
Argues Jonah Schulhofer-Wohl, a researcher at the TMC Asser Institute for International Law in The Hague, "It is unlikely PMCs could adversely affect a UN peacekeeping mission. It must be kept in mind that PMCs strive to be seen as legitimate in the eyes of the world community. They have an incentive to facilitate the operations of ngos and international organisations." But even if the PMCs don't pose a direct threat to peacekeeping operations, they certainly undermine their usefulness. And as such, India might well lose out with such competition in the long run.
But it is not just PMCs that are a threat to UN peacekeeping. One of the reasons that made Nambiar decide to leave Yugoslavia at the end of the year was the fact that the nato intrusion was about to begin. "I developed a cynicism there. I could see nato's intrusion was coming. And I didn't want to become a tool in the hands of nato. I would have had to oppose them but can you imagine Nambiar vs nato? I had to leave." He adds, "The UN was being used as a facade."
But none of this means anything to an average Indian citizen unless there is local media coverage of the situation. Complains Nambiar, "When I was in Yugoslavia, I was interviewed by every media organisation except Doordarshan. In the end, even when it comes to the situation in Sierra Leone, one can only see only what the western media wants to show."
In Sierra Leone, almost 250 UN peacekeepers - the majority of them Indians - have fallen into the hands of rebel forces. While 21 Indian peacekeepers are being held in eastern Sierra Leone after being moved from the town of Quiva to Pendembu, another 224 armed peacekeepers and 10 unarmed observers are hostages in the rebel stronghold of Kailahun. But not many Indians know this or care. "The value of the life of a soldier is more in the west than in the developing world. Indian life has become cheap," rues Maj Gen Ashok Krishna (retd).
He couldn't have said it better.
