Liberia will be joining the international community once again as an official troop contributing country to the The United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA). Today, it sent 50 troops to Mali.
This marks the second time that Liberia will participate in a peacekeeping mission. In 1961, Liberia provided troops to the United Nations Organization in the Congo, a UN peacekeeping force established under UN Security Council Resolution 143 of July 14, 1960, to respond to the Congo crisis.
Sending peacekeepers to another country is a big step for Liberia, perhaps suggesting that the peace there will endure. However, the question is are the Liberian troops ready, given that they have only come out of a civil war themselves ten years ago?
They have been training since February 4 for the mission. And, they will not be a contingent by themselves. They will be embedded into the Nigerian battalion, with First Lieutenant Nathaniel Waka serving as Commander of the platoon unit. The United States Government has provided logistics, personal gear and other equipment to the AFL platoon for the mission.
Perhaps we can look to the example of Sierra Leone, which has sent peacekeepers to Sudan and Somalia to get an idea of how Liberia may perform. Sierra Leone experienced conflict at about the same time as Liberia and their histories are related.
The contributions by Sierra Leone and Liberia have made me that that there may be two possible contradicting effects when newly peaceful countries join missions. A potential demand side effect and a potential supply side effect.
Supply side effect
All this begs the question about the supply side of peacekeeping. Peacekeeping not only supposedly benefits the host country maintain peace, but it serves a purpose to train and internationalize other country's military and police. Countries not only gain monetarily from contributing, but also through the extra training gained by those on the ground, who then may bring this new-found expertise to their home country. However, there is no empirical evidence that looks at the effects of peacekeeping missions on sending countries. What are the benefit and harms (if any) of former war torn countries contributing as peacekeepers? Do they benefit and do their home country military and police forces become better as a result?
Demand side effect
Moreover, what is the quality of peacekeeping that missions get when newly peaceful countries join the mission? Should these new contingents that have minimal training be training and providing security to the host country? To my knowledge, there is no study that looks at the success of peacekeeping missions based on the capacity of the troop and police sending countries. Are some missions less successful because they have large quantities of minimally trained officers?
This marks the second time that Liberia will participate in a peacekeeping mission. In 1961, Liberia provided troops to the United Nations Organization in the Congo, a UN peacekeeping force established under UN Security Council Resolution 143 of July 14, 1960, to respond to the Congo crisis.
Sending peacekeepers to another country is a big step for Liberia, perhaps suggesting that the peace there will endure. However, the question is are the Liberian troops ready, given that they have only come out of a civil war themselves ten years ago?
They have been training since February 4 for the mission. And, they will not be a contingent by themselves. They will be embedded into the Nigerian battalion, with First Lieutenant Nathaniel Waka serving as Commander of the platoon unit. The United States Government has provided logistics, personal gear and other equipment to the AFL platoon for the mission.
Perhaps we can look to the example of Sierra Leone, which has sent peacekeepers to Sudan and Somalia to get an idea of how Liberia may perform. Sierra Leone experienced conflict at about the same time as Liberia and their histories are related.
The Sierra Leonean peacekeepers are drawn from the same army that carried out two coups during Sierra Leone's civil war. Nicknamed “sobels”—soldiers by day, rebels by night—many of them were found by the country's Truth and Reconciliation Commission to have tortured, raped and even forced their victims to eat each other during the conflict.They have also sent police, some of whom have been successful in Darfur. What did Sierra Leone do right?
- They reduced the military and trained them well
A British-led training team arrived in 1999 and remains there today, five years after the UN peacekeepers withdrew. The British have spent more than $30m to revamp the army, reducing it from 20,000 men to 8,500, including the former rebels.
- They had international support when they deployed
Britain, Canada, the Netherlands and America have coughed up $6.5m to equip and pay for the batch of peacekeepers.Yet, the mission did not go smoothly for Sierra Leone. It was marred by scandal and there were a number of deaths.
The contributions by Sierra Leone and Liberia have made me that that there may be two possible contradicting effects when newly peaceful countries join missions. A potential demand side effect and a potential supply side effect.
Supply side effect
All this begs the question about the supply side of peacekeeping. Peacekeeping not only supposedly benefits the host country maintain peace, but it serves a purpose to train and internationalize other country's military and police. Countries not only gain monetarily from contributing, but also through the extra training gained by those on the ground, who then may bring this new-found expertise to their home country. However, there is no empirical evidence that looks at the effects of peacekeeping missions on sending countries. What are the benefit and harms (if any) of former war torn countries contributing as peacekeepers? Do they benefit and do their home country military and police forces become better as a result?
Demand side effect
Moreover, what is the quality of peacekeeping that missions get when newly peaceful countries join the mission? Should these new contingents that have minimal training be training and providing security to the host country? To my knowledge, there is no study that looks at the success of peacekeeping missions based on the capacity of the troop and police sending countries. Are some missions less successful because they have large quantities of minimally trained officers?
