A literature review was conducted to discover scholarly analysis of the reasons why countries do not contribute troops to UN missions. One of the emerging findings is that there has been no book or academic article written about why countries do not contribute troops to UN missions. Only one article was found after all the literature review was conducted, and this included the issue of contributing countries. D.C.F. Daniel and Leigh C. Caraher (2006) compare contributors and non-contributors along three dimensions: size of active-duty ground forces, regional location, and societal characteristics (governance, per capita income, internal stability and level of development) (2006, 1).
The literature review was concluded in six languages through WorldCat (English, Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese and Modern Standard Arabic) and in six research subject areas: 1) the politics of the UN/UN peacekeeping policy reform, 2) perception of peacekeeping, 3) domestic political environment, 4) domestic economic environment, 5) military affairs, and 6) foreign policy. No direct information was found in any of the languages, and the most relevant supporting information for this paper is described below. It is very important to clarify that this research is focused only on why some countries do not contribute troops to UN peacekeeping operations. The NCCs analyzed have never sent troops to UN missions, but some of them have sent military observers. This is not about military observers, UN police, and others.
The first research subject of literature concentrates on the politics of the UN/UN peacekeeping policy reform, and how this is related to the politics in the General Assembly and in the Security Council, as a reflection of international politics. Some of the goals of this section are to analyze of the UN reform placing emphasis on the DPKO (Brahimi Report). Following this, there will be an analysis of the functions of DPKO and the methods used to recruit troops from Member States. This final project looks back at the history of those methods, in order to understand how the NCCs were observing how the troops were recruited by DPKO. This sets up the general background about the UN reform, the recruitment process (before and after the reform) and the perspectives that it created in the eyes of the NCC. As will be discussed in the Methodology section, interviews with DPKO personnel were conducted to obtain that specific information. Nevertheless, regarding general information about the UN/UN peacekeeping policy reform, the George Mason University (GMU) Library databases collection was used as a source of references, as well as books in the languages mentioned above found through WorldCat.
The researcher began the search in the GMU database using the following keywords in English:
· Search #1: {United Nations} & {Peacekeeping} and {contributions} obtaining 10 matches; 0 related.
· Search #2: {United Nations} and {Peacekeeping} obtaining 184 hits; 51 related.
· Search #3: {United Nations} and {Reform} obtaining 156 entries; 37 related.
· Search #4: {Security Council} and {Reform} obtaining 24 hits; 9 related.
· Search #5: {Peacekeeping} and {Reform} obtaining 16 entries; 12 related.
· Search #7: {United Nations} and {General Assembly} obtaining 84 entries; 12 related.
On search #1, the 10 matches relate exclusively to countries that contribute troops to UN missions. The first impression is that the sources are not directly related. Nevertheless, the researcher looked for special factors that were not explicitly mentioned in the literature review. The issue of finding extraordinary factors related to specific NCCs was more stressed during the interview process of the data collection. In this process, the researcher asked directly to the diplomats based in the NCC mission to the UN if there were specific factors that belong to their country.
Besides all the books found, the UN website offers meaningful information, particularly regarding the Brahimi Report, as it states that the United Nations was founded, in the words of its Charter, in order “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” (DPKO 2000, par. 1). The creation of the Brahimi Report started when the Secretary-General asked the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations, composed of individuals experienced in various aspects of conflict prevention, peacekeeping and peace-building, to assess the shortcomings of the existing system and to make frank, specific and realistic recommendations for change (Ibid.). The recommendations focus not only on politics and strategy but also and perhaps even moreso on operational and organizational areas of need (Ibid.). The Brahimi Report is the cornerstone of DKPO reform. Despite its importance, within the Brahimi Report there is no information about the non-contributor countries’ role in the recommendation and this paper addresses those issues.
Meeting the challenge of international security is the most important function of the organization, and to a very significant degree it is the yardstick with which the organization is judged by the peoples it exists to serve (Ibid.). Over the last decade, the United Nations has repeatedly failed to meet the challenge, and it can do no better today (Ibid.). Without renewed commitment on the part of Member States, significant institutional change and increased financial support, the United Nations will not be capable of executing the critical peacekeeping and peace-building tasks that the Member States assign to it in coming months and years (Ibid., par. 2).
Yves Beigbeder (1997) states that since the mid-1980s, the internal management of UN organizations had been under attack, particularly by the US Administration and Congress, some US foundations and by the media in the US and in the UK (1997, 1). Nordic countries and independent groups have also identified some of the organizations’ weaknesses and made proposals for improvement (Ibid.).
As a result, reforms fall into five main categories: 1) ensuring ethical conduct, 2) strengthening oversight and accountability, 3) updating the organization, 4) improving senior management performance, and 5) increasing transparency (UNDPI 2005, par. 3). And part of the focus of this paper is to examine DPKO reform, and how it will create the participation of NCCs. The DPKO has had special problems, because there are many tasks which United Nations peacekeeping forces should not be asked to undertake and many places they should not go (Ibid., par. 2). But when the United Nations does send its forces to uphold peace, they must be prepared to confront the lingering forces of war and violence, with the ability and determination to defeat them (Ibid.).
Also, the Security Council is under reform. As Dimitris Bourantonis (2005) states:
The Security Council was established in accordance with the realities of 1945 but, as a dynamic and flexible institution of the UN, has had to keep its structure abreast of the changes in the world environment in which it has lived ever since. It follows that the reform of the Security Council is not an end in itself but rather an essential means of it retaining its relevance to an evolving world. The need arises for the institutional structure of the Security Council to be periodically overhauled in order to avoid facing the danger of remaining behind the reality in which it is supposed to function. (2005, 87)
Alan James (1990) argues that another attempt to establish a link between peacekeeping and the ebb and flow of international politics is the suggestion that it has to a large extent been a reflection of the Cold War (1990, 364).
Therefore, the researcher continued the search in the WorldCat database using exclusively the keywords of search #1 and #2 in the following languages: English, Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese and Modern Standard Arabic. No significant information was found. It was concluded that regarding books, English is the language most used to produce literature regarding peace operations. French and Spanish are the second languages. In the case of French, Canada and France have the lead on books published regarding peace operations. While in Spanish, Argentina and Spain have published more books than any other Spanish-speaking country. Unfortunately, no relevant information was found about countries that do not contribute troops to UN peace operations. Further in the literature review, the researcher used Lexis Nexis to find a high quantity of articles written in those languages regarding peace operations and each of the NCCs.
The second research subject of literature concentrates on peacekeeping and its relation with the non-contributor countries. As mentioned before, no scholarly literature directly related was found. In fact, the list of NCCs was unknown at least outside DPKO. Therefore, the analysis of all the country contributions was needed since the first UN peacekeeping mission, the United Nations Troop Supervision Operation (UNTSO) in Palestine, established in 1948. This analysis was based on UNDPI (1996) and information available at the website of DPKO. Many of the NCCs have engaged in UN missions providing different types of contributions (including voluntary contributions)—such as military observers, medical units, air lift, helicopters, civilian police—but no troops (military units). And the goal of this paper is to know why.
There are 65 NCCs. The list is located at the bottom of the main page of this electronic platform. It is important to mention that some of these countries, such as Azerbaijan and Georgia, have participated/participate in non-UN missions. Antigua, Qatar, and Barbuda are not NCCs anymore and its analysis was not included. Panama and Liberia are not NCCs anymore either, but their analyses were included.
There are two challenges that need to be addressed to be successful in this second subject. The first is the lack of literature (books) written about this topic, and the second is the language barrier—because something likely has been written some time during the history of each country, but most likely, it was written in their own language. For example, there is no relevant information about Mexico’s role in peacekeeping missions written in English, but there are approximately five sources in Spanish. A similar procedure will be conducted with the rest of non-contributor countries.
Nevertheless, the closest work that describes this relation was edited by David S. Sorenson and Pia C. Wood (2005). The authors provide a general study of the reasons why some specific countries contribute troops to UN missions. This is the closest of all the scholarly work drafted that relates to why a country contributes. Nevertheless, it is still not related to why a country does not contribute. This final project attempts to state that the politics of peacekeeping includes two spheres: the contributor and the non-contributor countries. This section of the literature review focuses on the contributor countries.
The expansion of UN peacekeeping activity has created numerous difficulties for the United Nations as an organization and for the Member States participating in the peacekeeping operations (PKOs) (Ibid., 3). Therefore, there are many reasons why countries participate. Sorenson and Wood state:
There are three groups of countries that have special characteristics that influence their active participation in peacekeeping: 1) the first group represents countries whose commitment to peacekeeping expanded substantially in the context of the post-Cold War order: Australia, Germany and Argentina; 2) the second group provides information about the participation of three of the five permanent member of the UN Security Council: France, the United Kingdom and the United States; 3) the third group is composed with countries with long-standing experience in peacekeeping: Canada and Austria; 4) the fourth group is composed by regional powers which are active in peacekeeping operations: Nigeria and India. (Ibid., 4)
From this study, several factors were extrapolated to analyze why those countries contribute. In the general area of social sciences, probably the same factors and the intensity to affect local politics and economics could also increase the willingness to send troops.
Another study was conducted by Katsumi Ishizuka (2004) about the motivations for one country’s participation, in this case, Ireland. Again, the difficulty is the fact that there is no information about which countries do not contribute troops. An analysis of all contributions was performed to obtain the list of NCCs. This analysis was based on UNDPI (1996) and information available at the website of the UN and DPKO. Therefore, the researcher focused on articles found in the InfoTrac One File database and Lexis Nexis Academic database.
The following tables provide an overview of articles written in English obtained through the InfoTrac One File database. Lexis Nexis’ results were found in a language different than English (see respective column).
The following keywords in foreign languages have been used for this literature review. It is important to mention that the keywords are technical translations of the English terms. It is also important to mention that Lexis Nexis does not offer the option to do the search in the Arabic language. Thus, another database was used for that purpose.
Three main sources were used for this section: the country profiles from the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), government websites, and the articles found in Lexis Nexis and the Info Trac database. For example, in February 6, 2006, the Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs proposed the participation of Mexico in international peace operations and stated that this proposal faces a negative debate in the country (XNA 2006a, par. 1). As will be mentioned in the upcoming Methodology section, the researcher utilized the country profiles obtained from the EIU. For example, in the case of Iceland: “Politics in Iceland has traditionally differed in two important respects from other Scandinavian countries” (EIU 2006t, 11). The two respects are as follows: “First, the Social Democratic Party has not been as dominant as it often has been in Sweden, Norway and Denmark, and second, minority governments, so often the rule in other Scandinavian countries, are an exception in Iceland” (Ibid., 3). This is an important consideration that the researcher must have in order to understand why Iceland is the only Scandinavian country that does not send troops to UN missions.
The fourth research subject of literature is the domestic economic environment of the NCCs. This section will be also based on the country profiles from the EIU, government websites, and the articles found in Lexis Nexis and the Info Trac database. One of the many interesting findings is that the per capita gross national income is not necessarily a determinant on the willingness to contribute troops to UN missions. The World Bank and National Geographic (2005) map entitled “Global Agenda to End Poverty” was utilized to identify NCCs, and enabled the researcher to conclude at this early stage that per capita gross national income is not directly related to the willingness to send troops.
The fifth and six research subjects of literature are about military affairs and foreign policy respectively. Before the researcher engages into the data gathering and the data analysis, it is important to understand what has been called “schools of thought” in international relations. This is better explained by Takashi Inoguchi (1999):
Three books of major importance have been published in the last few years; they are Henry Kissinger’s Diplomacy, Bruce Russett’s Grasping the Democratic Peace, and Samuel Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Those books have been used by the foreign policy makers in their countries, and it is possible to see signs of their contents in the way Foreign Policy is conducted. Inoguchi (1999) takes them [the books] as representative articulators of three totally different streams of thought which according to them govern, ought to govern, and will govern global politics in the next millennium. Kissinger’s Diplomacy is Westphalian; Russett’s Grasping the Democratic Peace is Philadelphian; and Hungtington’s The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order is anti-utopian. By Westphalian I mean a framework in which state sovereignty reigns supreme. By Philadelphian I mean a framework in which popular sovereignty stands firm. By anti-utopian I mean a framework in which the loss of sovereignty is the key feature. (1999, 457)
Later he concludes with the following analysis of the three frameworks governing the United Nations:
The presumption is that these three frameworks of global politics are competing, and it is not quite clear which one will prevail. Looked at from these three angles, the United Nations is an instrument, an actor, and an arena at the same time. First, the United Nations is an instrument of major Westphalian actors. It lends to them the banner of legitimacy for actions which presumably serve the interests of major powers, especially the world leader, the United States. Second, the United Nations is an actor on its own when it can mobilize support and build power bases somewhat independent of member states. Its appeal to just causes and to correct banners often enables the United Nations to surmount the logic and power of the Westphalian actors. Although, the United Nations can enjoy neither the authority to tax nor the authority to conscript, it can sway. Third, the United Nations is an era in which many weak actors express their complaints and submit their demands. It is widely utilized space where words do matter, rather than might or money. Just like the frameworks of global politics, the United Nations does work under the three frameworks: Westphalian, Philadelphian, and anti-utopian. Accordingly it has three faces: instrument, actor, and area. (Ibid., 459-460 and 462)
Therefore, the researcher must analyze every piece of information keeping in mind the influence that it contains from one, two and/or the three frameworks. This is especially useful when analyzing the foreign policies of the NCCs and while interacting with its diplomats.
This has been the literature review for this research that attempts to develop an explanation of why some countries do not contribute troops to UN missions. This final project faces one big challenge: Nothing has been written about the NCCs in the main two languages of international politics. Nevertheless, this final project also faces many opportunities. The need to include more countries in the peacekeeping efforts is a reality, and it has been stated before, as Indar Rikhye (2000) states that the politics of peacekeeping in the so-called new world order are certain to influence the practicalities of peacekeeping (2000, 22). This research addresses those practicalities. Because greater political commitment by Member States to the peacekeeping role of the UN will translate into greater material support, in the form of troops, financing, or other resources (Ibid., 3). Half-hearted support, however, will produce many of the same difficulties encountered in the past, such as ambiguous mandates, evanescent diplomatic backing and insufficient financing (Ibid.).
