Straining to Hear

A room with a New York view, from Soho to the United Nations and everything in between.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Blue helmets, blue ball caps, blue turbans

Yesterday was another field mission. This time we visited a number of communities that had recently returned to their villages after months or years of displacement. We were there to do a bit of monitoring, to ask some questions about the assistance they received from us a month ago and find out whether it really met their needs. It was a good mission. Maybe I’m just getting used to being in the field, but I was far more at ease this time than I have been previously. To date I have always felt awkward and voyeuristic, whereas this time I felt like I belonged there, like I was serving a purpose. I’m feeling that in general now. My leather boots and suit jackets have been replaced by hiking boots and logo T-shirts, and instead of my blackberry I have the comforting weight of my radio handset hanging from my jeans at the small of my back.

Of course, the experiences are still new and frequently bizarre. The road yesterday was long and tortuously bumpy, as they always are. About an hour or so into the ride we were met by our military escort, the Pakistani brigade of MONUC. They came more lightly equipped than is sometimes the case; only three jeeps, one with a mounted gun. That’s a lot less cumbersome than the four or five armoured personnel carriers that we sometimes get saddled with. Still, hooking up with them occasioned a visible change in the reception we were met with on the road. Traveling in our original convoy of two, our passing was acknowledged as though we were floats in a parade: a constant chorus of cheering and waving children and adults, many of them calling out the name of our agency (though quite a few stick to “Muzungu!” – white people.) Once we joined up with MONUC, the atmosphere changed. The children were still excited, but there was something noticeably aggressive about their behaviour, especially among the boys. A lot of them mimed shooting or fist-fighting as we passed, which I suppose is natural for little boys seeing soldiers, but is not exactly the kind of greeting humanitarians are accustomed to receiving.

That’s why our NGO partner, catching up with us on the road, was so quick to skirt around our convoy and keep going. It wouldn’t do for them to be seen in the middle of a MONUC convoy. The peacekeepers support the FARDC, the Congolese national army. That means that the rebels (the ones MONUC are protecting us against) perceive them as supporting the enemy, which means that anyone seen riding with them could be guilty by association. Our NGO partner raced ahead to preserve what’s known as “humanitarian space” – the perceived neutrality that is crucial to effective humanitarian work.

I might have had a good day, but the peacekeepers were visibly bored, loitering around their vehicles while they waited for us to finish on site. But it was our turn to wait on the route back; the soldiers decided to stop in the shade of a mango tree on the roadside to have lunch, a feast of heavenly smelling Pakistani food. They invited us to join, and I could see that my colleagues were hesitant – humanitarian space and all that. But sod it – they had naan. I climbed into the back of the truck to break bread with the sergeant, trailed by the others who seemed visibly relieved that someone had given in to temptation before they did. (Apparently the humanitarians cave in more often than not; the sergeant told me that “Whenever I am doing escort, I am making picnic!”) The lunch was as tasty as it smelled, and the sergeant amiably invited us by the base should we ever have a craving for more.

The peacekeepers are a fascinating phenomenon. One of the favorite pastimes here is to compare and contrast the various brigades – their habits, talents and drawbacks. The Indians are spotlessly professional, impressive in their blue turbans and immaculate beards with curled-up mustaches, each one a virtual clone of every other. They stand ram-rod straight with their feet shoulder-width apart and their hands folded behind their backs, and they invariably serve you tea. The Pakistanis are slightly scruffier but clearly disciplined, and also fond of tea. The Nepalis labour under a cloud of shame after the conviction and imprisonment of some of their soldiers following a sex abuse scandal, and have brought in their most rigid and rule-abiding officers as a result. The Moroccans are known for excellent food and heavy military escorts. The South Africans blend in very well with the locals (black and white soldiers alike), learning the language and making an effort to understand local customs – in contrast to the South Asians who are criticized for their disdainful distance (and who for their part scorn the professionalism of the South Africans). I haven’t got the Uruguayans or the Bengalis pegged yet, although I reckon the latter can be added to the “fond of tea” list.

Blue helmets, blue ball caps, blue turbans – MONUC is a microcosm of the UN in general. A slightly uncomfortable confederacy of well-meaning entities who have very different visions of the Right Thing, each of whom has a unique cultural perspective that brings benefits and drawbacks. And like the UN in general, the failings of a few tarnish the reputation of the many, and the organization itself bears the brunt of criticism for things over which it actually has no control – like the behaviour of its Member States’ soldiers. Just as “the UN” is blamed when France and the US and the UK can’t get China to change its Darfur policy, MONUC is tarred and feathered when soldiers in an army serving on its behalf (but over which it does not have command) do something shameful.

Not that MONUC, or the UN, is flawless. It’s a cumbersome and frequently annoying bureaucracy that regularly has its head where the sun doesn’t shine. Still, it does a lot of good.

Let me stop here before I go off on another rant about UN-bashing.

5 Comments:

At 3:34 AM, Blogger Jesper Haglund said...

Frankly, after the reports yesterday about UN-soldiers being involved in another sex-scandal involving children (in the Ivory Coast and a few other places), a rant against UN-bashing might be needed to maintain the balance...

Personally I feel that the bit you wrote about how the MONUC works - those involved may not always like each other, but they have to work together - is what's most important about the UN. It's easy to forget, but this is an organisation in which many old (and not so old) enemies are working together (albeit not always toward the same goal it seems); an organisation which is funded in part by both Israel and the various arab states, something I'm not sure can be said of any other non-sporting organisation (and even among those, Israel tend to be part of the European federations rather than the Asian ones).

I'm not sure what I've written make much sense, or is even expressed clearly enough to read through without becoming as confused as a cat at a stoners' party (I'll blame having been up for 30 hours), but my point would be that if it's sometimes a big step just to get two enemies to sit down and talk to each other (or in the recent case of Israel and Syria, agree that they might talk to the other party), then having an organisation in which they may have to do this on a daily basis can only be a good thing, regardless of whether that organisation has the most efficient or the most inefficient bureacracy in world history.

Oh, and the Moroccan kitchen is almost as good as the Provençal and Burgundian ones.

Sorry for the rambling.

 
At 12:31 PM, Blogger E said...

Jesper,

No apologies necessary. This is a blog -- rambling is what we do here.

The way I see it, you're either a multilateralist or you're not. If you think the world would be better served by a single country acting as policeman, fine. But you have to accept that this can, perhaps inevitably WILL, go awry -- a fact that anyone living through the Bush Administration should easily grasp.

If, on the other hand, you think that every country should have a say in how the world is run, then you have to have a forum or a mechanism through which to make that happen. I would guess that most people in most countries lean towards this multi-actor solution, the way we lean towards multi-party political systems at the national level. What I fail to understand is how you can accept that a UN-like organization is necessary but somehow imagine that the one we have could be better replaced by a different model. That's just naive, in my opinion. The problem is structural, and there's currently no getting around it. So long as the world is organized into states, those states will pursue their own interests. And so long as that happens, any multilateral forum where they come together to make decisions will suffer from the same problems as the UN. The answer is for states to keep holding each other to account so that little by little they all become more responsible international citizens. And the only way to do that is to ensure they have a forum in which to bash heads.

As for sex scandals, I have mixed feelings about the 'news'. I'm annoyed at Save the Children and the BBC for lumping a whole host of different problems in to one category. Rape cases exist, but the countries listed in the report mainly involved sex "abuse", which in UN parlance means taking advantage of vulnerable persons (sex for food or other goods) or having sex with under-aged girls. These are still wrong and need to be punished, but the image put forth by Save and the BBC is one of peacekeepers running around gang-raping children.

Anyway, it's horrible any way you cut it and those soldiers should be sent to jail. Some Troop-Contributing Countries (TCCs as we call them) will do this, but many won't. So the UN is in a tough spot. They need countries to contribute troops. Most Western countries (including yours and mine) pitch in very rarely, leaving the task to the usual suspects -- Bengalis, Uruguayans, Nigerians, etc. Sorry to say, you end up with a lot of dodgy soldiers serving in UN peacekeeping missions.

Anyway... a tough issue, for sure.

 
At 7:59 AM, Blogger Jesper Haglund said...

I'll stand by my rambling-apologies, I probably shouldn't post when I'm only a few hours away from being so tired that I start to see and hear things that aren't there (of course, some of my 'friends' from school who had a more conservative outlook on politics than me would have said that I'm like that 24-7) ;)

"What I fail to understand is how you can accept that a UN-like organization is necessary but somehow imagine that the one we have could be better replaced by a different model."

Not sure if that was directed at my post, because I sure don't meant to give the impression that I want to replace the UN; I like the organisation a lot, I would even say it's one of the best ideas to have come out of the dear old US of A since the telephone (although it should be pointed out that the person who came up with the two-way phone was a Swede, LM Ericsson ;), and I suppose the Italians will have something to say about Fermi, as well...).

And I couldn't agree more about Western countries not contributing enough to peacekeeping missions (I'd happily sign up to serve in one, but I was deemed "psychologically unfit" for even the normal service during my draft, it's a lot less dramatic than it sounds - I only mentioned that I didn't feel particularly motivated to spend a year playing cowboys and indians in the woods of wherever in Sweden I'd be posted) - yesterday I saw an item on one of the national Swedish news-programs about how the EU-troops in Chad are having to lease helicopters from Russia for troop movements.

But now I'll stop before I get long-winded or decide I'll have to start my own blog, and head for home to re-read "The Mission Song" by John Le Carré, indirectly set in Kivu, and featuring all but one of the groups you mentioned in one of the previous posts.

 
At 11:55 AM, Blogger E said...

Whoops -- chalk that up to the imprecision of the pronoun "you". My remark was not at all directed at you, Jesper. A better formulation would have been, "What I fail to understand is that one can accept that a UN-like organization is necessary."

Oh, and by-the-by, Alexander Graham Bell was a Scot. :-)

 
At 7:48 AM, Blogger Jesper Haglund said...

Well that's okay then. I was afraid I'd been even more incoherent than I suspected (it'd probably help if I stopped inserting paranthetical sentences that take up more space than the rest of the messsage I guess). ;)

And would that make him a "Great Scot!"? - Sorry, my dad's from Gothenburg.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home