The US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, is discussing the idea of an international peacekeeping force which could be dispatched to maintain order in the world’s trouble spots.
The idea is an apparent sharp reversal of the Bush administration’s staunchly unilateralist stance. It also runs counter to the administration’s strong opposition, on taking office, to tying up troops in peacekeeping roles.
But with American forces thinly spread across the globe and the US military facing insurgency and accusations of mishandling the situation in post-war Iraq, the White House is coming under increasing political pressure to find a different means of policing unstable nations.
Earlier this week, the UK’s ambassador to the UN, Jeremy Greenstock, urged the US to spearhead a peacekeeping force for Liberia, which is being torn apart by a civil war.
At a dinner in Washington last week, Rumsfeld told defence industry leaders: ”I am interested in the idea of our leading, or contributing to in some way, a cadre of people in the world who would like to participate in peacekeeping or peacemaking.
”I think it would be a good thing if our country was to provide some leadership for training of other countries’ citizens who would like to participate in peacekeeping … so that we have a ready cadre of people who are trained and equipped and organised and have communications [so] that they can work with each other.”
The US military’s effort to keep the peace in Iraq after the official end of the conflict looks increasingly unstable. A rash of attacks on US and British troops has pointed to growing disaffection among Iraqis, while looting and sabotage continue to damage efforts to get the nation back on its feet.
Twenty-one US soldiers, and six from Britain, have been killed in assaults since the war ended.
US military officials have complained that they have received little or no training for peacekeeping. Most US military police are reservists, given just one day of instruction on dealing with civilians. Nato has taken a lead role in peacekeeping in the Balkans, but has been reluctant to get involved in Iraq.
Firms looking to invest in Iraq are reportedly being warned of an ”even” chance of its descending into open revolt.
More than half the US army’s deployable troops are currently engaged in peacekeeping and stabilisation operations around the world, including in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. The army is not only spread thinly, but the long-term absence of so many soldiers is causing political disquiet at home.
Rumsfeld acknowledged in reply to a question at the dinner that it would have been good to have a peacekeeping force in place before the Iraqi war.
He told reporters yesterday during a brief press conference on a different matter that there had been ”discussions about [a peacekeeping force] for a couple of years, but there have been no specific proposals put forward.”
The Pentagon is said to have approached countries in Europe and Latin America about the idea of setting up a force, although the UK’s Ministry of Defence in London said yesterday it was unaware of the proposal.
It is unclear how many troops the US might be prepared to commit. A Pentagon spokeswoman confirmed that discussions had been taking place ”for some time” but declined to offer further details.
The US currently has 150 000 soldiers stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A permanent US peacekeeping force was discussed during the Clinton administration.
President Bush, however, promised to pull troops out of the Balkans, where the US has 5 500 soldiers stationed, and said he would review the commitment of US troops in dozens of other countries.
The national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, said of the army at the time: ”It is not a civilian police force. It is not a political referee. And it is most certainly not designed to build a civilian society.”
But September 11 changed US foreign policy radically, and stabilising overseas countries is now viewed as a matter of national security. – Guardian Unlimited Â