Bring the troops back

In response, the Indian government has reflexively tried to put a brave face over the allegations, pointing out that the offences are trivial, and that disciplinary action will be taken against those found guilty. Now, the UN itself has little incentive to pursue the allegations aggressively. Given that there is more demand for peacekeepers than its member nations are willing to supply, it is hardly likely to do anything that will embarrass countries 8212; most of them from the developing world 8212; that do contribute troops. So it was perhaps the outcry over the Congo episode that compelled it to announce that 8220;the same Indian peacekeepers will not be accepted in future missions8221;.

The entire business of UN peacekeeping suffers both from big power apathy and from international red-tape. During the Rwandan genocide in 1994, Major General Romeacute;o Dallaire, the Canadian commander of the UN contingent, complained that 8220;the poorer contingents showed up 8216;bare-assed8217; and demanded that the United Nations suit them up8221;. That8217;s not all. It was the first time that the Canadian general was out in real combat!

Pakistan 10,629, Bangladesh 9,047 and India 8,964 are the largest contributors to UN peacekeeping contingents. In contrast, the United States contributes 297 personnel, of which only 13 are combat troops. Before China began to attract criticism for backing repressive regimes in Africa, it had only a few hundred troops serving under the UN flag. It now has 1,978, several hundred of who are in Sudan, where Beijing has strategic interests. On the other hand, in January 2007, TIME magazine8217;s Michael Elliott wrote that 8220;there are reportedly 4,000 Chinese non-UN troops there protecting Beijing8217;s oil interests.8221;

More Indian troops have died in the line of their UN duties than from any other country. According to the Indian Embassy in the US, 8220;India has risked the lives of its soldiers in peacekeeping efforts of the United Nations, not for any strategic gain, but in the service of an ideal. India8217;s ideal was, and remains, strengthening the world body, and international peace and security.8221;

That the Indian government should take pride in risking the lives of Indian soldiers in the 8220;service of an ideal8221; is appalling. It now serves little more than bureaucratic interests.

So what has India gained 8212; apart from bragging rights 8212; for being one of the largest troop contributors to the UN? Well, risking lives to service ideals certainly didn8217;t count for much when it came to the bid for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. Nor does it count for much in India8217;s economic diplomacy 8212; veto power at the Security Council is far more useful than 9000 troops in the world8217;s forgotten war zones. Arguably, income from UN peacekeeping duties was a source of hard currency when India was starved of foreign exchange; this is no longer a factor.

The argumentthat UN peacekeeping postings provide combat experience, international experience and financial rewards for involved personnel does not hold up either.

With so much action on India8217;s frontiers the case to send a few thousand troops to Africa for combat exposure is inexplicable. Moreover, units posted for UN duties have three times as many officers as comparable units back home. This, at a time when the armed forces are complaining of acute shortages of officers.

UN peacekeeping does not provide useful international exposure. Indian troops need more of the kind of exposure that comes from joint exercises with the armed forces of the United States, Britain, Japan and ASEAN. Such exposure will not only create personal networks, system interoperability and joint operating procedures but also assist in military modernisation.

It might even have been acceptable to allow Indian soldiers to derive financial benefits if UN contingents had anything like the quality, discipline and governance that exist at home. Poorly defined rules of engagement, and unclear chains of command have bred a culture that allows and covers up errant behaviour. This risks eroding the professional ethos of our armed forces. Moreover, it makes our armed forces appear, by association, as mercenary force in for easy money.

In order to give the issue the attention it demands, India should immediately suspend all further UN deployments. This should be followed by a graduated withdrawal of all Indian troops operating under the UN flag. There might be a case for a small, token presence, in carefully chosen theatres.

It is time for India to stop seeing foreign troop deployments as 8220;risking lives in the service of an ideal.8221; Rather, they should be seen as being tightly coupled with vital foreign policy objectives, like for instance, securing India8217;s construction crews in Afghanistan. As India8217;s economic interests expand globally, it is likely that the need for such deployments will increase.

Nitin Pai 038; Sushant K Singh are associated with Pragati 8211; The Indian National Interest Review, a publication on strategic affairs, public policy and governance.