|
|
||
04/26/07 |
         
|
Peace
Keeping involves a wide range of activities. Commonly it entails the positioning of personal to verify agreements and
monitor cease fires. Peace keepers
might be interposed between combatants as a confidence building measure. They have also aided the settlement of civil and communal conflict.This
has involved cantonment and disarming of combatants, protecting humanitarian
activities, establishing essential services like accommodation, water supply,
electricity, etc. Duties have
included enforcing law and order, and training and supporting local forces.
On rare occasions peace keepers have had to forcefully respond to those
threatening their safety or mission. Military
personal, police, diplomatic and civilian personal are involved in peace
keeping. Mostly they carry light
arms for self defence, if they are armed at all.
Peace
keepers are exposed to all manner of dangers even when no one is deliberately
shooting at them. They are often
deployed to harsh and remote locations. This
entails problems from heat or cold, inadequate sanitation and access to
sophisticated medical facilities. Poor
roads, airfields and communication present their own hazards.
The risk of vehicle and aircraft crashes in any high tempo operation is
significant. Sailors face the
usual hazards of cramped conditions, pitching decks and working around heavy
machinery. Boarding and searching
vessels at sea, particularly by helicopter is dangerous work.The remnants of war include minefields, unexploded ordnance, hazardous
chemicals and lots of poorly supervised weapons.
Peace
keepers can also be exposed to stray shots and artillery fire should fighting
break out. Peace keepers have
been deliberately attacked. Snipers
have been an irritating cause of casualties amongst peace keepers in the former
Yugoslavia. They have been ambushed,
shot at, and had to defend their positions. Aircrews have been fired upon while on re-supply, medical evacuation and
reconnaissance missions. Peace
keepers have been forcibly detained, kidnapped and murdered.
A few have remained unaccounted for, and are presumed dead.
Peace Keepers have also engaged in offensive operations.
French Foreign Legionnaires and Fijian troops threatened to attack
Israeli and Palestine Liberation Army forces respectively in southern Lebanon. US Army Rangers aggressively sought out Clan Leader Farah Aideed in
Somalia, whose militia ambushed Pakistani soldiers. UN Troops in the Belgian Congo (1960-64)
had to respond to a secessionist uprising. There
have been retaliatory air strikes within the former Yugoslavia by NATO aircraft
at the request of the United Nations. Casualties Since
close of World War II around four thousand Australian service personal and
police have participated in peacekeeping operations. Most of these have been in
the last few years. Over this period
there has been a small number of deaths among those on peace keeping duty. A Police Inspector died in Cyprus, an Army Captain was killed in a mine
incident in southern Lebanon, and a Soldier was victim of an accidental weapons
discharge in Somalia. Two other Police officers were killed in traffic
accidents. This is along with
casualties from illness and injury. In
some ways troops are safer on peace keeping duties than a similar group of young
adults who remained at home. The
incidents of death and injury amongst young people because of car crashes,
substance abuse and violence, etc. is comparatively high. Whilst on active service troops are supervised and protected by their
peers and superiors. Service
personal are more likely to died in private car crashes than on active service. The main-stayers of UN peace keeping, eg, Canada, Ireland and Pakistan are familiar with loses among their service personal. Since 1948 over 1,000 service personal and police have been killed and around four thousand wounded during United Nations peace keeping operations. These include 230 dead from the 20 000 size UN Force deployed to the former Belgium Congo. At times the Congo Force suffered casualties comparable to that experience by Australian troops in Vietnam. The UN Transitional Authority in Cambodia experienced 59 fatalities over a two years. The Multi-National Force sent to Beirut from 1982 lost 344 dead, including 239 US Marines in a single suicide bomb attack. Incidents
of Loses The
term casualties covers loses caused by death, injury, disease or capture. Casualties do not necessarily have to be as a result of enemy action. Casualties during military operations tend to occur at a predictable
rate. Peace keeping is no exception. Casualties
are often expressed as a number per day for every 100 000 troops. This number is a large enough sample so that exceptions average out. Peace keeping operations rarely involve large numbers, but over time the
cumulative loses reflect the expected norm. The 5000 strong UN Interim Force in Lebanon has suffered 193 fatalities
over a fifteen year period. Which is
equivalent to one death almost every day per 100 000 troops. Combat looses during World War Two typically average about forty deaths each day per 100,000 troops. For counter insurgency operations like the Vietnam war the ratio is about two to three deaths each day. Peace keepers can expect to loose up to one solider per day from snipers, mines, shelling, etc. This is about one soldier from a battalion group of a thousand troops on a six month deployment. For each dead solider there will be two to three others severely wounded. Peace keepers rarely engage in battle, but are exposed to the risk surrounding combat. This includes a arduous and hazardous environment, random shelling, vehicle accidents, mental anxiety, and ill health. Looses from such causes are significant. It is common for disease and accidents to inflict more casualties than an armed enemy. Injuries and death from vehicle and aircraft crashes, and weapons accidents will effect twenty troops each day per 100 000, of which about 10% will not survive. The higher the tempo of the operation the more casualties that can be expected. Troops are safer remaining in their barracks. For a battalion group this might account for two or three deaths over a six month period. The casualty rate from disease, particularly in tropical conditions will be one to three hundred soldiers per day, although most will return to duty after a few days. The
incidents of debilitating mental anxiety, emotional trauma and substance abuse
can be significant amongst peace keepers. They
can face incredible dilemmas at times, either to flee, fight or acquiesce. They are often deployed in small isolated and ad-hoc units comprising
various national contingents. The troops are without the personal support and
supervision of their own unit, which tends to mitigate against the stress of
active service. There can be
inadequate health services. UN
operations tend to deploy only minimal support facilities. Finally, only those
with major units will receive public recognition. In summary a battalion group on a six month deployment, should expect to experience up to two or three deaths, and about three times that number severely injured or incapacitated. This is not an excessive proportion. A similar casualty rate would be experience if a field exercise involving live ammunition was held over a lengthy period. Units may be regularly deployed on peace keeping duties and suffer no more than minor illness and occasional injury. Although they might experience a few fatalities from vehicle crash or sniper fire. At the extreme, a solitary mortar shell, or mine explosion could kill and maim dozens of people at the same time. Such incidents will happen rarely, but they will occur. Over time these loses will average out to the expected norm. There are many things that can be done to reduce the incidence of casualties. Training, discipline and competent leadership will help, so too will protective clothing, armoured vehicles and expert medical care. However, casualties can not be avoided altogether. Public
Response Opinion polls show a favourable response to peace keeping. Although there is anxiety about the risk to lives. There is a perceived difference between death or injury during day to day living and that suffered on active service. Training accidents are tragic, but do not receive the same public attention as death in the line of duty. Particularly if the death it is the result of a violent act by a foreigner. More so if there are a large number of casualties on the same day. This may occur un‑expectantly. It is the nature of war for long periods on inactivity to be punctuated violent carnage. The public response could be expected to varied depending on the circumstances surrounding any casualties. A solitary death of an individual on observer duty would create the least public response. The deaths of a number of soldiers from a major unit at the same time would receive heightened attention. The reaction will be greater if the soldiers were women, young or Reservist. The most difficult problem would be a kidnapping. A vehicle crash or mine incident will be more acceptable than an ambush. An incident during an election campaign or Christmas/New Year period would receive more attention than otherwise. In face of such tragedy the response by the public, media, politicians, soldiers themselves and service families will be emotional and perhaps angry. What preparation should the Government make for such misfortune? How should they respond?
Politicians In the event of casualties among peace keepers, some politician can be expected to over react. In our adversarial Parliamentary system the opposition will demand answers and question the Government's competence and decision making. Party leadership may seek bi-partisanship on the matter. Although there will be mavericks within both opposition and Government whom will use the situation to seek an audience. Being noticed helps in obtaining public office. Some people enjoy criticising. The Government leaves itself open by declaring the protection of troops to be paramount, this will be construed as a guarantee of safety. The death or injury of service personal will provide government critics with political ammunition. The usual political response is for strict personal ceilings and restrictions on activities. This will effectively reduce the number of casualties. It would also inhibit the peace keepers in fulfilling their mission. The objectives of any peace keeping operations should be publicly and clearly annunciated. The Government should stress the danger of peace keeping and not imply it can be risk free. No major change of policy, public inquires or reviews should be initiated immediately following any death or injury. That is aside from normal departmental or coronial reviews. The Government must not appear to be surprised. This would indicate a lack of resolve. Troops could be endanger if a perpetrators believe they can influence government policy. Public inquiries merely provide critics with a forum and add little to lessons that can be learnt. The time for reviews is in the absents of public emotion. For example, the current Senate Committee inquiry into peace keeping. Media The impact of the media on government policy should not be underrated. In the 1880s, the British Prime Minister, Gladstone was pressured to intervened in desolate Sudan because of editorialising to save the folk hero Gordon. More recently, the American response to Somalia was driven by nightly telecast of suffering children. TV images of their dead soldiers whose bodies where mutilated encourage them to leave. The United Nations in Bosina & Herzegovina found fleeting resolve after a solitary mortar bomb killed sixty-eight civilians in the Sarajevo marketplace on 9 February 1994. The bloodied victims were seem around the world. Although, the weekly casualty rate over previous months among civilians from snipers and artillery had been as great. It took a televised event for there to be any action. Media images motivated the Australian Government to respond to Rwanda. Even if procrastination meant the soldiers arrived after the massacres. Conversely, the lack of attention to Mozambique allowed the UN requests for help in that country to be ignored. Japanese troops went instead. Presumably their Government was happy with a low profile operation because of disquiet about sending troops abroad. The mass media entails a wide range of outlets, from newspapers, radio, and TV news. Many of them are able to present discernible and informative commentary on complex situations. However, such outlets do not enjoy high readership or ratings. They may lead off issues. Although, public opinion is more reflected in tabloid news papers, talk-back radio and TV current affairs. It is from here that politicians respond. Populist
media outlets thrive on simplistic and visual stories. They have an insatiable
appetite for human interest stories. Despite
popular images military force can never be precise.
Unintentional death and injury of civilians would also see a public out
cry. The death or kidnapping of a local is always of popular interest. Consider the outcry displayed by Americans over their
diplomats being
taken hostage by Iran. More recently there was the anguish over a couple of
Australian nationals who were kidnapped and murdered in Cambodia. The kidnapping of service personnel would result in a media frenzy.
Public statement that such loses are regrettable but a risk of peace keeping
should be made. However, this
message will not be heard in many quarters.
There might be sober editorial comment in support of peace keeping. Although, the resounding call may be to bring the troops home. This is as happened after eleven Belgian paratroopers on UN duty were
kidnapped and murdered in Rwanda in April 1994. Troops should expect their actions to be supported in public. Breaches of discipline should be dealt with by military law, which is more severe than its civilian counterpart. There should be a public relations contingency plan in case of substantial loses in a single day. Journalist should be pre-briefed and protocols established about how deaths and injury should be reported. This should include an embargo on images of the dead and maimed. Spokespersons should be designated and have prepared statements. Media relations should be handled by the Department of Foreign Affairs and not Defence. Peace Keeping has primarily diplomatic and not a military objectives. Foreign Affair is also more experience and sophisticated in media relations. The media should be given appropriate access to troops in the field. This is provided that they do not unduly intrude on the troops privacy or inhibit operational requirements. The Public must see the faces and determination of those most at risk.
Services Service personnel and their families will be circumspect in response to the reaction to any death or major injury. Provided there is proper involvement from commanders this should be of the least concern. Soldiers in the field will likely remain focused on their mission, perhaps more so. They will require de-briefing and a little time for reflection, but will want to get on with their job. Counselling services should be available when troops return home. Personnel at home and service families may require addition help. They will not have a concrete view of the mission. The purpose of the mission may have to be reinforced. There may be difficulties if the mission in vague, open ended or subject to public controversy. Although, the small professional services should be reasonably isolated from such contentions in the short term. Over the longer term the affect on moral, separation rates and family life may be a concern. The duration of tours, availability of leave and rotation of personnel are important factors. The UN favours lengthy tours of duty because it is more economical. Morale will be maintained if families are supported and troops are properly compensated and receive appropriate commendations for being on active service. Conclusion Peace
keeping is often seen as an optional exercise that distracts from the protecting
Australia. In a multi-polar World
this is not going to be the case. Peace
keeping is a means of reducing geo-political tensions and preventing the break
down of international security. Australia's
trade and economic development would suffer greatly far sort of a general war or
threat of invasion. In face of
widespread disorder there will be political imperative which compel Australia to
intervene in Pacific islands and near by areas. This will be out of concern for
own security and economic welfare. Much
like the European countries have intervened in the former Yugoslavia. This could be with or without UN authority. The Australian public would demand action in face of communal violence
within our area of interest. They
would also not devote taxation to a defence force that avoided humanitarian
commitments. In
any circumstance there is always the chance that the security situations could
deteriorate. It may not be prudent,
let alone practical to withdraw. Fixed
commitments and set time lines may not be possible. Commitments should be maintained until a peaceful and secure environment
has returned. To paraphrase
"the battle is never over until its' over." There will be a requirement for more peace keeping commitments in the
near future, and the likelihood of greater casualties.
There can be no assurance that the troops will be safe. However,
the risks of peace keeping far out weigh the consequence of failure. Originally Published in Defender, Journal of the Australia Defence Association, Autumn 1995 |
This site was last updated 12/13/06
2000 Australian military personnel and civilian police on
peace keeping duties.