This Issue
Secretary-General's Progress Report on Standby Peacekeeping Arrangements
The 30 March report covered developments since the Secretary-General's previous report of 24 December 1997.
Concept
The key service of the standby arrangements is the bilateral exchange of detailed information to facilitate planning and preparation for both participating member states and the UN. They were intended to establish precise understanding of member states' available forces and other capabilities, at a given state of readiness, should they agree to contribute to a peacekeeping operation. Such resources could comprise military units, individual civilian and military specialists, specialised services, equipment and other capabilities.
Current Status
As at the time of writing, 81 member states were included in the system, totalling some 104,000 personnel: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chad, China, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mongolia, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, UK, Tanzania, US, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Gambia, Latvia, Madagascar, Mali, Mongolia, Namibia, Niger, Thailand and Togo joined the standby arrangements system since 24 December 1997. Some 61 out of the total 81 had provided information on their specific capabilities. Also since December 1997, 8 member states signed the Memorandum of Understanding (bringing the total signatories to 21): Finland, Germany, Ireland, Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania, Nigeria, the Netherlands and Romania.
The capabilities involved are shown in Table 1 of this report. Although personnel in the system included the whole range of components envisaged from multifunctional peacekeeping operations, an infantry bias necessitated additional resources to complement manoeuvre units with the necessary logistic support, especially in the areas of: strategic sealift/airlift; communications; multi-role logistics; transport; health services; engineering; mine-clearing; and transport utility aircraft, the so-called force multipliers for a peacekeeping operation. The functions within each category of resources are shown in Table 2 of the annex. More civilian police personnel were also required in the system.
In relation to response times for deployment, from normal locations: 43 % offered 30 days or less; 16 % between 30 and 60 days; 5 % between 60 and 90 days; and the remaining 36 % more than 90 days or have not stated any response time.
Particular attention had been paid to brief African permanent missions about the system. Consequently, 10 additional African member states had joined the system since December 1997, bringing the total number of African countries involved to 22. The Secretariat was assessing the feasibility of dispatching a standby arrangements briefing team to the West Africa region during the first part of 1999.
Information, Planning and Contingent-Owned Equipment
General Assembly resolution 50/222 of 11 April 1996 authorised the implementation of a new procedure for determining reimbursement to member states for contingent-owned equipment. The above procedure required a Memorandum of Understanding on contributions which had to be both agreed and signed before deployment of the contingent or resources could go ahead. This process threatened to delay the process of rapid deployment. Thus, member states that have already pledged to the standby arrangements system might wish to exchange, in advance, the necessary information to complete relevant annexes to the Memorandum of Understanding
The Planning Data Sheet was introduced to facilitate preparation of a preliminary Memorandum of Understanding on contributions, which required information on capabilities, organisation, movement data, details of self-sufficiency and a list of major equipment for the units. This simplified the Memorandum of Understanding on standby arrangements which, in turn, facilitated the process of signing a Memorandum of Understanding. It was expected that contributing states with a response time of up to 60 days would complete the Planning Data Sheet.
Problems arising from reductions in personnel for the standby arrangements teams (six officers and one non-commissioned officer in December 1997 down to two officers) prevented realisation of the standby arrangements system's full potential. The Secretary-General urged expanding the database through the incorporation of additional detailed information from the new Planning Data Sheet to accelerate the process of planning and deployment of units. This should facilitate units arriving in mission areas fully equipped and with sufficient provisions for up to 60 days.
The Planning Data Sheet could also help alleviate the problem of units not being offered required ranges of equipment. Thus, in view of the limited capacity of the Secretariat to maintain such equipment, the concept of partnerships needed to be encouraged again. These agreements between governments that could offer personnel but were short of equipment and those ready to provide equipment should cover related aspects such as training and maintenance. Such governments could then be included in a standby arrangement upon participation in the system. Standby arrangements information had already facilitated the planning and deployment for peacekeeping operations in Haiti, Angola, Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium, Guatemala, the Central African Republic, Western Sahara, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Sierra Leone and Georgia. Information had contributed to better planning and reduced deployment times.
Response Time
Special efforts had been made to urge member states to reconsider response times, while states that had failed to give response times had been asked to determine one. The aim was to establish a better balance of resources into the 0-60 day response time bracket. The definition of response time was the period between the receipt of a formal request from the Secretary-General to provide resources to the moment when resources are ready to be collected at specified points of embarkation. Therefore, in included the time needed by governments for domestic political approval and administrative procedures as well as for military, police or individual preparation.
Observations
The standby arrangements system confirmed its ability to hasten planning by early identification of possible troop-contributors and supplying prompt, accurate and reliable information to planners for peacekeeping operations. The system also revealed its ability to shorten the time needed to finalise the Memorandum of Understanding for supplying personnel, equipment and services through enabling the advance exchange of necessary information in advance, using the Planning Data Sheet.
The Secretariat continued to explore appropriate arrangements for the setting up of Rapidly Deployableg Mission Headquarters. Despite recent budgetary decisions that have restricted sufficient staffing, the Secretariat was convinced of the value that such a headquarters could offer in ensuring speedy and effective responses. While the UN still has no true rapid-reaction capability, standby arrangements represented a step in the right direction.
Annex: Statistical Information on Standby Arrangements for Peacekeeping
Table 1 - Manpower by Category and Response Time
|
Table 2 - Categories Broken Down by Functions
|
|
Source: UN Doc; S/1999/361- 30 March 1999
The Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict
On 24 June, the UN Department of Information opened its website for the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict, currently Olara Otunnu. We have featured some relevant extracts from the site:
Selected Extracts
"Background
Since the World Summit for Children, in 1990, the United Nations has increasingly sought to draw international attention to the horrendous plight of children affected by armed conflict. In 1993, following a recommendation by the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the General Assembly adopted resolution 48/157 of 20 December 1993, recommending that the Secretary-General appoint an independent expert to study the impact of armed conflict on children. Ms. Graça Machel, former Minister of Education of Mozambique, was appointed the expert of the Secretary-General, charged with the task of undertaking the study with the special support of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the United Nations Centre for Human Rights. In 1996, following two years of extensive research, consultations and field visits, Ms. Machel submitted her report, entitled the "Impact of Armed Conflict on Children", to the General Assembly at its fifty-first session.
In response to the Machel report, the General Assembly adopted In response to the Machel report, the General Assembly adopted resolution 51/77, in which it recommended that the Secretary-General appoint for a period of three years a Special Representative on the impact of armed conflict on children. The Assembly also called upon States and institutions concerned to provide voluntary contributions in support of the work of the Special Representative.
The Secretary-General appointed Mr Olara A. Otunnu as his Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict in September 1997. In announcing the appointment, the Secretary-General underscored the urgent need for a public advocate and moral voice on behalf of children whose rights and welfare have been and are being violated in the context of armed conflict.
The Special Representative should like to pay a special tribute to Ms. Graça Machel for her ground-breaking work and singular contribution to promoting the rights and protection of children victimised by armed conflict. Her report provided the first comprehensive and most compelling assessment of the multiple ways in which children are abused and brutalised in the context of armed conflict. The Special Representative feels particularly honoured to follow in Ms. Machel's footsteps and to build on the strong foundation she has built.
Main objectives: promoting prevention, protection and rehabilitation
A serious and systematic effort by all concerned parties from Governments to the United Nations system to civil society organisations to private citizens is needed to address the abominations being committed against children in the context of armed conflict. As an advocate on behalf of these children, the Special Representative is working to spearhead that effort. He is seeking to combine normative, political and humanitarian strategies in efforts to promote prevention, protection and rehabilitation for the benefit of children. In this context, the Special Representative is developing the following major activities.
Protection through public advocacy
The Special Representative is to give a public voice to children who have been victimised by the chaos, cruelty and lawlessness that characterise contemporary armed conflicts. He is working to raise greater public and official awareness of international instruments and local norms that provide for the rights, protection and welfare of children, even as he highlights the horrific impact of ongoing conflicts on them. His role is to be a public advocate and a voice for prevention, protection and rehabilitation. The Special Representative seeks to draw official and public attention to the abominations being committed against children, and to mobilise action through a range of activities, including field visits, the engagement of concerned Governments and civil organisations, media outreach, addressing opinion leaders, and other awareness-raising strategies.
Promoting concrete initiatives in the midst of ongoing conflicts
In situations of active violence where the security and well-being of children are seriously endangered, the Special Representative undertakes political and humanitarian diplomacy, proposing concrete initiatives to prevent or mitigate the suffering of children. He, in effect, serves as a facilitator and a resource for the agencies and bodies that operate on the ground. He works with them, for example, to unblock difficult political situations and to seek access to civilian populations in distress, the worst affected of whom are always children and women. This sensitive political role requires close co-ordination with partners within and outside the United Nations community, especially the relief and humanitarian organisations whose work on the ground would be facilitated by such initiatives.
Mobilising concerted response to post-conflict needs
In countries that are emerging from conflict, the Special Representative is highlighting the needs of children and women whose lives have been shattered by war. Cessation of hostilities does not mean that war is over, particularly for children who have been extensively exposed to the culture of violence. Only with a systematic programme of healing and reintegration into society can the cycle of violence be broken. The healing and rehabilitation needs of children should, therefore, constitute a central theme and not an afterthought of post-conflict peace-building programmes. The Special Representative is working to promote this concern with agencies and bodies of the United Nations system, as well as non-governmental organisations.
Some of the issues and needs that should be addressed in a collaborative manner include: prioritisation of child rights within the terms of peace accords and in the mandates of peacekeeping operations, the demobilisation of child soldiers and their social reintegration, the return and reintegration of displaced and refugee children, mine-clearance and mine-awareness programmes, psychological recovery, educational and vocational training, and issues of juvenile justice.
Promotion of compliance with international standards and re-establishment of local norms that promote child protection and welfare also merit priority attention".
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Index to Issues
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
[Index] [About Monitor]