Preventive Security in the 21st Century: The Threats of the Threats

“Human security means protecting vital freedoms. It means protecting people from critical and pervasive threats and situations, building on their strengths and aspirations. It also means creating systems that give people the building blocks of survival, dignity and livelihood. To do this, it offers two general strategies: protection and empowerment. Protection shields people from dangers. Empowerment enables people to develop their potential and become full participants in decision-making.”  UN Commission on Human Security (2003)

Let aside the debate around what globalization means; it has become evident that this phenomenon has shown that what affects one nation often affects another, or many others, and that interdependence exists in many forms and shapes. For the sake of this paper, we will move forward while adopting Nick Bisely’s method of defining globalization: “[The definition] depends not only on one’s basic vision of  [globalization's] constituent elements, but also on the sphere of human life in which one is interested” (Bisely, 2007). This paper examines preventive human security within the sphere of human security in the 21st century.

My attention was drawn to the subject of peacekeeping in the 21st century as the solution to a plausible reality that may impose itself upon us in the future. In light of an increasingly sovereignty-sensitive yet globalizing world, and given the prospect that violence-related trends will persist (war-related fatalities will move up to be the 15th leading cause of death in the year 2020) (Peden, McGee and Sharma, 2002); has the international community overlooked the possibility of threats emanating from current humanitarian concerns and global predispositions? And finally, is the international community prepared to meet potential security challenges that emanate from these threats? It is my hope to  underscore the current challenges that may serve as a breeding ground for future global conflict and insecurity.

Conflict, illiteracy, poverty, hunger, water scarcity and pollution among other human sustainability threats continue to be some of the more pressing topics placed at the top of the global agenda at the dawn of the 21st century. Human security provides a framework in which such critical components as those above may be addressed. Globally, the world’s population is on the rise all the meanwhile these issues remain persistent; this unbalanced progress will have serious implications to bare in the future, most notable of which is turning to hostile means to ensure survival, hence in light of these persistent threats the threat of armed conflict is a continuous risk. If the notation is true and wars between states are becoming less common while wars within them are on the rise (Hoffman, 2002) all the meanwhile weaker states in particular have always had to struggle not only to maintain effective control within and over their borders but also to exclude external authority (Kanser, 1999), it becomes clear then that preventive security today (and well into the future) will remain central to the process of moving forward with ensuring human survivability.

Preventive security in this paper will represent one component of global human security, as outlined by Prince Hassan of Jordan (PIJPEC, 2008), that  encompasses the prevention of armed-conflict. I will also touch on Food Security, Monetary Security and Resource Security as they relate.

The Threats of the Threats

Globalization, irregardless of the definition you use, is apparently encompassing the world, in some instances slowly and in others surely. This increase in global interactiveness and interdependence begins to highlight the fact that different societies have become dependent upon one another. Like technology, the economy and diplomacy, conflict too has demonstrated its global tendencies, as modern history has repeatedly demonstrated. It has the tendency to encompass the world; hence it too is very closely related to globalization.

The world is shrinking, not only because of globalization but also due to the rapid increase in global population. There is less room for people in the 21st century then at any other time in history. In fact, it took all of human history, until 1800, for the world’s population to reach one billion (roughly today’s population of Europe and North America combined), while most mid-range population projections foresee future population rising to 10-12 billion by the end of the current century (Lutz, n.a). Aside from an increasing population (and the issue of population security), the global community finds itself facing other serious challenges. The three cornerstones of this paper are:

• Food Security and Hunger: Over 850 million people in the world are undernourished.This equals roughly 14 percent of the world’s population.However, there is enough food in the world today for every man, woman and child to lead a healthy and productive life (Netaid, n.a). The latter portion of this statistic is quite frightening, especially when considered through the scope of human security; given that the hungry can find food elsewhere (and in many instances within geographic proximity) some may take matters into their own hands and as a result pursue aggressive means of securing this much needed food supply. Furthermore, the statistics become shocking when thought of as a daily occurrence; about 25,000 people [worldwide] die every day of hunger or hunger-related causes (poverty.com, n.a). Hence the question: What’s to keep these individuals from taking matters into their own hands and attempt to secure their own supply of food from adjacent countries after continuous disappointment in state or internationally-sponsored intervention?
• Global Poverty; closely related to hunger, is another of today’s challenges. Infact, as of Dec 2008, almost half the world — over 3 billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day; 1 billion children live in poverty (1 in 2 children in the world) (Shah, 2008) despite nearing the Millennium Development Goals deadline marked for 2015. Rising food prices and increased demand have created a global state of instability and unpredictability. In 2007 A report published by Brookings Global Experts noted that: “In a world where boundaries and borders have blurred, and where seemingly distant threats can metastasize into immediate problems, the fight against global poverty has become a fight for global security.” (Brainard , Chollet , Nelson, Okonjo-Iweala and Rice, 2007).
• Depleting Natural Resources; Oil and Water both stand out as the two main components of this category. Infact conflict over water supplies is hardly a new issue as it has been the cause of clashes between nations for many decades, even centuries prior to the start of the 21st century. However, with the current concerns over global warming, one could say that water resources will only be depleting more rapidly during the 21st century, hence increasing the potential of resource wars. Infact the World Bank has noted that “The wars of the [21st] century will be about water" (OMEGA, n.a). In 2007, the NATO Review recognized that: “A substantial portion of fresh water in basins is shared by two or more nations. Water scarcity can therefore lead to either low density conflicts - or the full waging of a war” (Coskun, 2007).

One can only imagine what implications this could have on already turbulent regions such as The Middle East and Africa, where UNEP has recognized that they both provoke perhaps the greatest concern about water shortage: by 2025, 40 countries in the regions are expected to experience water stress or scarcity (Lonergan, 2003). Furthermore a study carried out by the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at the University of Arizona established that more than a dozen nations receive most of their water from rivers that cross borders of neighboring countries that are viewed as hostile. These include Botswana, Bulgaria, Cambodia, the Congo, Gambia, the Sudan, and Syria, all of whom receive 75 percent or more of their fresh water from the river flow of often hostile upstream neighbors (UoA, n.a). The majority of nations worldwide suffering from a lack or depletion in the amounts of safe drinking water are closely bound by nations that have access to water, the same argument goes to say that where one nation faces national catastrophe, a neighboring nation is home to that much needed commodity. It does not take a lot of research and thought to realize that what is needed must be sought; hence there will be a constant threat of conflict looming in the 21st century.

So why these three concerns in particular? Good question. First, these three represent the basics of life; to uplift oneself from poverty and secure vital resources is every nation’s primary concern. Secondly if history has shown us anything, it has proven that when demand for resources outweighs supply and when the distribution is perceived to be grossly unfair, public frustration can spark civil strife (Brainard, Chollet, Nelson, Iweala and Rice, 2007). Combined, this can spark trans or intra-border conflict, directly or indirectly.

The Futile Reality: Peacekeeping

The issues highlighted above are simply a few of many others; however these three threats in particular pose much more serious concerns to regional and/or global security than their counterparts. As mentioned earlier, they lay the grounds for conflict. In preparing to meet the threats posed by such threats it becomes clear that for the international community to tackle such issues, there would have to be answers made available to some crucial questions; how can global institutions be better equipped to tackle these issues? What are the mandates of international peace-keeping? Who takes part and when? Etc. Yet the subject that stands out the most is that of state sovereignty… it is difficult to see how such threats will be addressed if the world continues to regard sovereignty as a undisputed foreign affairs priority. Sovereignty here is what refers to international recognition, as opposed to state control, or domestic constitutional order, or the exclusion of external authority (Krasner, 1999). Prince Hassan of Jordan notes: “Whether intervention in the affairs of a state is a moral duty of the international community or a violation of state sovereignty… there is no forward reason why sovereignty could not be shared to reflect the realities of an interdependent world” (PIJPEC, 2008).

Unfortunately, the international mechanisms already put in place do not allow for swift and effective action to address any threat, be it through peacekeeping or swift diplomacy. Over the years we have watched as these very same institutions stood by in the face genocide in places such as Rwanda, or unilateralism in Russian offensives in the Balkans – Georgia, and we continue to watch as the Millennium goals deadline approach and progress in many cases is slow, if not [completely] absent (WHO, 2007); the results are not promising - the potential outcomes, terrifying. Michael Chertoff, US Secretary of Homeland Security while writing for the Foreign Affairs Journal, seems to recognize this fact when he notes: “States can no longer hide behind seventeenth century concepts of sovereignty in a world of twenty-first-century dangers” (Chertoff, 2009). The reason behind such continuous inaction on part of the international community is underscored for the most part by the issue of nation sovereignty. We simply do not act because it is someone else’s internal business. This logic has become obsolete, yet the issue remains to be sensitive.

It should be recognized that Globalization added complication and potency to internal conflict and terrorism. While creating wealth, opportunities for work, and a better life for many, it often impacted adversely on vulnerable strata of society… Those who felt marginalized, deprived or angered by what they perceived as injustices caused by poverty and inequity, found new ways of grouping themselves together (Ogata, 2002). Could nations follow this attitude? Yes, it’s very much likely. Nations deprived of resources, frustrated with reoccurring disappointments in a failing international aid system may set out to secure these resources via other means. That being said, it can be argued that these challenges (highlighted above) pose a serious global security threat, and if the international community continues to fail in addressing these issues, the consequences may be nothing short of destructive.

To add to the confusion, the United Nations Peacekeeping website itself states that “The term "peacekeeping" is not found in the United Nations Charter and defies simple definition. Dag Hammarskjöld, the second UN Secretary-General, referred to it as belonging to "Chapter Six and a Half" of the Charter, placing it between traditional methods of resolving disputes peacefully, such as negotiation and mediation under Chapter VI, and more forceful action as authorized under Chapter VII.” Hence not only is there an issue of inaction, but simple definitions and operational legislation also appear to be problematic. From the above one would gather that Peacekeeping is realistically infeasible. Global threats are light years ahead of global preparedness to meet them. Let aside the political variables in the build up to any peacekeeping mission, too many sensitive issues hinder operational success, and in many instances post-operational unrest occurs. One of these operational issues is the remarkable and ever-growing cost of peacekeeping itself.

Assessing Preparedness

“Current security policies are self-defeating in the long-term and a new approach is needed… If there is no change in thinking, Western security policy will continue to be based on the mistaken assumption that the status-quo can be maintained… A shift from a ‘Control Paradigm’ to a ‘Sustainable Security Paradigm’ will be hugely important.” Abbott, Rogers and Sloboda, 2006.

The largest and most extensive organization operating on the global arena today is the United Nations. At this point in time, the UN is the closest establishment we have to safeguard global security and sustainable development in the 21st Century. Sadly, the protocols in place today fail to meet global concerns and demands; they also appear ineffective in counteracting emerging threats. Constant inaction has yielded in an even weaker state of being. Over the past few decades we have seen this establishment produce less and less results. From Rwanda to Kosovo to Somalia and Darfur and so on, such examples have stood as testaments to this constant inability to promise, protect and perform.

The largest initiative in place today aimed at addressing current global humanitarian concerns (the threats of the threats), are the Millennium Development Goals’ and their deadline (2015) is fast approaching; we are more than halfway through the project, and the results do not seem promising at all. To name a few of the challenges facing the MDGs we could stop at issues such as: First, incompatible IMF policies – for example - Countries cannot meet the MDGs without exceeding spending limits imposed by the IMF, thus making it effectively impossible for them to meet their MDG commitments and the demands of their electorates (Lobe,2005). Second, lack of financial commitment (Developed Countries are not meeting the minimum GDP percentage aimed at foreign aid (0.7%); a basic requirement of the MDGs. As of 2006, only Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden do so (Novonty, 2006). Third, the unexpected global economic crisis; According to estimates of the World Bank and others, attaining the MDGs will require at least $ 50 billion per year in additional aid (or a doubling of current aid levels) (Hermle,2003). That amount has not been satisfied in any year since 2000. It is hard to imagine how this amount can be guaranteed following the current global economic crisis. Lastly of course are the questionable measuring criteria guiding the MDGs; The goals were established as global targets. But they are delivered, and measured (not always reliably), within individual countries. Some observers question whether the goals are distorting aid allocations (Perkins, 2008).

Coupled with depleting global resources, poverty and hunger, this constant ability to yield failures will in turn yield unimaginable consequences that will raise the stakes of global insecurity in this century. Hence the question: Are we prepared for the challenges of the 21st century? The answer is simple, no. We haven’t even resolved the outstanding issues of the previous century yet. The earlier part of this century will be spent attempting to rectify the mistakes of the previous one, all the meanwhile the new threats will be looming. Unless the issues are addressed prior to evolving (Prevention) the international community’s preparedness or more accurately, its ability to eliminate the threats, will always operate in retrograde; hardly ever bringing about positive change let alone guaranteeing global security. This is a risk that our increasingly globalized world can no longer afford in the 21st Century.

Concluding Thoughts

The end of the 20th century has served as an example of how the “realist – bandwagoning” theory was put into practice even in the absence of international consent; Operation Iraqi Freedom. The coalition moved on to address what was considered a mutual threat and neutralize it. Now given that in “bandwagoning”, smaller states align with the source of danger by cutting a deal with a more powerful state to ensure survival or even to share the gains of conquest (Kay,2006), then one could argue that given that 35 states in Africa (out of 54) are facing significant food security threats (Kay,2006), endeavors to secure this vital resource are conceivable, the question is when?

It becomes apparent then that serious reform is vital; the instruments currently in place appear to be ineffective and the international community lacks a serious preventative measure. International partnership on the matter is essential, now more than ever, as our world becomes more and more interconnected, our security grows to become a collective-common. Despite championing the concept of human security we have only taken small steps in realizing its promise; a journey that will take decades to resolve, if not longer.

Hence the question: Do governments worldwide realize the range of security threats posed by current humanitarian concerns? Is the international community preparing to meet these threats? Or is there an event of greater proportions awaiting us in the 21st century? The answer unfortunately remains formless, and only time can tell.

---

References

Abbott C, Rogers P., Sloboda J. (2006) Global Responces to Global Threats – Sustainable Security in the 21st Century. Oxford Research Group. P.4 June 2006. http://www.scribd.com/doc/2588201/Global-Responses-to-Global-Threats-Sustainable-Security-for-the-21st-Century

Bisley, Nick. (2007). Rethinking Globalization. Introduction: P.2 , 2007

Brainard L., Chollet D., Nelson J., Okonjo-Iweala N., Rice S. (2007). Conflict and Poverty. Brookings Global Experts. http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2007/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2007/02globaleconomics/200702_02poverty.pdf

Brainard, Chollet, Nelson, Iweala, Rice (2007). Top 10 Global Economic Challenges-An assessment of global risks and challenges. Brookings Global Economy and Development. P.6;Ch2. 2007. http://www3.brookings.edu/global/pubs/200702global_topten.pdf.

Chertoff, M. (2009). The Responsibility to Contain. Foreign Affairs. P.142 Volume 88 No. 1

Coskun, B.B.(2007). More than water wars: Water and international security. NATO Review - Growing dangers: emerging and developing security threats. Winter 2007. http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2007/issue4/english/analysis5.html

Hermle, R.(2003). Assessing Progress in Meeting the MDGs and ODA Commitments. United Nations General Assembly High Level Dialogue on Financing for Development New York, 28 October 2003. http://www.venro.org/fileadmin/Publikationen/Einzelveroeffentlichungen/Entwicklungsfinanzierung/Statement%20Hermle%20FfD.PDF.

Hoffman, S. (2002) Clash of Globalizations. Foreign Affairs. P.106

Peden M, McGee K, Sharma G. (2002). The Injury Chart Book: A Graphical Overview of the Global - Burden of Injuries. Geneva: World Health Organization

PIJPEC (2008).Palestine Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture. Article based on HRH Prince Hassan’s address at the Thematic Debate on Human Security, the UN General Assembly. 15.3 P.6 http://0-web.ebscohost.com.ilsprod.lib.neu.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=4&hid=112&sid=de47c233-52b8-45c8-80de-d71ff1845787%40sessionmgr103

Perkins, A. (2008). Time to review the development goals. The Gaurdian. September 2008. http://www.guardian.co.uk/katine/2008/sep/25/aidanddevelopment.news

Kay, S. (2006). Global Security in the Twenty First Century. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.; Ch.2 - P.24

Kranser, S. D. (1999). Globalization and Sovereignty. NY: Routledge: P.35-45.

Lonergan ,S.(2003). Water and War. UNEP. 2003. http://www.unep.org/OurPlanet/imgversn/154/lonergan.html

Lutz, W. (n.d) World Population Challenges in the 21st Century. United Nations University. http://www.unu.edu/millennium/Lutz.pdf

Lobe J (2005). IMF Policies Thwart Poverty Goals-Report. Inter Press Service. Sept 2005. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0920-01.htm

Novotny, T. E. (2006). US Department of Health and Human Services: A Need for Global Health Leadership in Preparedness and Health Diplomacy. American Journal of Public Health. 2006 January; 96(1): 11–13. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1470430

Netaid. (n.a) Mercy Corps. http://www.netaid.org/global_poverty/hunger

Poverty.com. (n.a.) Hunger and World Poverty. http://www.poverty.com/

Sadako, Ogata. (2002). Human Security in the 21st Century. Coca-Cola World Fund Lecture 27 February 2002. http://www.humansecurity-chs.org/activities/outreach/Yale.pdf

Shah, A (2008). Causes of Poverty. Global Issues. Dec 27 2008. http://www.globalissues.org/issue/2/causes-of-poverty

The OMEGA Institute. The Water of Life - Challenges & Opportunities in the 21st Century. http://dev.eomega.org/omega/workshops/f8b3b6f6848a69db77944c226bd6c27f/

UNHDR. (1994). United Nations. Human Development Report 1994, UNDP. http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/peaceday/facts.asp

United Nations Peacekeeping. http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/.

University of Arizona, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (n.a). Global Water Shortage Looms In New Century. http://ag.arizona.edu/AZWATER/awr/dec99/Feature2.htm

WHO. (2007). Mixed progress towards the Millennium Development Goals in the WHO European Region. Fact sheet 07/07.

Belgrade, Copenhagen, 17 September 2007. http://www.euro.who.int/document/mediacentre/fs0707e.pdf.

---

Appendix

Fig. A: Examples of resource/territorial disputes and concerns (ongoing today)

Countries	Area of dispute	Why it matters	Current status
Bolivia and Chile	The small chunk of territory that separates Bolivia from the Pacific Ocean.	One word: water. An arrangement between the two countries allows landlocked Bolivia to ship its goods to the ocean tariff-free through northern Chilean ports. But that’s not enough to satisfy Bolivia, which lost 250 miles of the disputed coastline in a 19th century war.	In early July, the two countries set up a joint committee to improve bilateral ties, suggesting that full diplomatic relations—which were broken over the sea-access issue 30 years ago—could be restored. Chilean President Michelle Bachelet is open to that idea, especially since Bolivia’s immense reserves of natural gas could help fuel the energy-hungry Chilean economy. But she has emphatically dismissed the possibility of ceding any territory.
Brunei, China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam	The Spratly Islands, a cluster of more than 100 tiny reefs, islets, and atolls in the South China Sea, with a land Area of less than 5 square miles.	Food, traffic, and oil. The Spratly Islands are one of the most heavily fished areas in the world. They’re also Located in the center of the principle shipping route between Europe and Asia. And most lucrative of all are the untapped energy sources from the seabed below. China estimates that there are 17.7 billion tons of oil in the area, which would make it the fourth-largest oil reserve in the world.	The reasons for sovereignty claims are myriad: Some nations insist that they have historical ownership, While others say that geographical logic should prevail. All parties laying claim to the territory with the exception of Brunei maintain a military presence on the islands, despite a 2002 commitment (signed by all but Taiwan) to resolve differences by peaceful means. Although military confrontations have calmed down in recent years, the islands remain a hot-button issue in the region
Equatorial Guinea & Nigeria	Offshore tracts in the Gulf of Guinea	Nigeria insists that the Zafiro undersea oil field, claimed by Equatorial Guinea extends to Nigerian offshore territory	Negotiations to date have been fruitless
Afghanistan	Internal dispute as a result of acute food security	Critical international (NATO) objectives are threatened by the prospect of increased possibility of internal disputes among different ethnic groups.	FAO  (UN) established a Food, Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Information Management and Policy unit - FAAHM (which derives from the Dari word for “knowledge”) – within the Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry (MAAH) in July 2003, with funding from USA and Germany. FAAHM supports MAAH in the collection, analysis and dissemination of information related to agriculture and food security, and provides advice to Government officials on agricultural policy and legislation. Results are yet to be determined.

Sources: Foriegnpolicy.com1, Resource Wars (Klare, 2002)2, FAO3

Fig. D: Previous cases of acute water-related disputes

Date	Countries involved	Reason	Result
1948	India and Pakistan	Partition between the two leaves the Indus Basin divided in a particularly convoluted fashion. Disputes over irrigation water exacerbate tensions in the still-sensitive Kashmir region, bringing the two riparians “to the brink of war.”	Twelve years of World Bank-led negotiations lead to the 1960 Indus Waters Agreement. Today the topic remains of sensitive nature.
February 1951–September 1953	Israel and Syria	Exchange sporadic fire over Israeli water development works in the Huleh Basin, which lies in the demilitarized zone between the two countries	Israel moves its water intake to the Sea of Galilee.
January–April 1958	Egypt & Sudan	Amid pending negotiations over the Nile waters, Sudanese general elections, and an Egyptian vote on Sudan–Egypt unification, Egypt sends an unsuccessful military expedition into territory in dispute between the two countries.	Tensions were eased (and a Nile Waters Treaty signed) when a pro-Egyptian government was elected in Sudan.
June 1963–March 1964	Somalia & Ethiopia	The 1948 boundaries left Somali nomads under Ethiopian rule. Border skirmishes between Somalia and Ethiopia took place over disputed territory in Ogaden desert, which includes some critical water resources (both sides were also aware of oil resources in the region)	Several hundred were killed before cease-fire was negotiated.
March 1965–July 1966	Israel and Syria	The two exchanged fire over “all-Arab” plan to divert the Jordan River headwaters, presumably to preempt the Israeli National Water Carrier, an out-of-basin diversion plan from the Sea of Galilee	Construction of the Syrian diversion was halted in July 1966.
April–August 1975	Iraq and Syria	In a particularly low-flow year along the Euphrates (owing to filling of upstream dams), Iraq claimed that the flow reaching its territory was “intolerable” and asked that the Arab League intervene in its dispute over this with Syria. The Syrians claimed that less than half the river’s normal flow was reaching its borders that year, and after a barrage of mutually hostile statements, an Arab League technical committee that had been formed to mediate the conflict pulled out. In May 1975, Syria closed its airspace to Iraqi flights, and both Syria and Iraq reportedly transferred troops to their mutual border.	Mediation on the part of Saudi Arabia broke the increasing tension.
April 1989–July 1991	Mauritania & Senegal	Two Senegalese peasants were killed over grazing rights along the Senegal River, which forms the boundary between Mauritania and Senegal. This sparked smoldering ethnic and land-reform tensions in the region. Several hundred people were killed as civilians from border towns on either side of the river attacked each other,	Each country used its army to restore order. Violence broke out sporadically until diplomatic relations were restored later in 1991.

Source: (IDRC, 1998)4

Fig. E: Some examples of recent Peacekeeping missions and outstanding Issues

Country	Initiation/Termination date	Organization/s	Issues
Bosnia	1995–2002	United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH)	the U.N. declared safe areas for Muslims but did nothing to secure them, letting the Serbs slaughter thousands in Srebrenica5 Post conflict relative stability
Burundi	2004–2007	United Nations Operation in Burundi (ONUB)	Insecurity continues to be a problem in Burundi and has intensified with the violation of the ceasefire accord that was signed in 2006 after years of civil war. Sporadic fighting in late 2007 and early 2008 between Government forces and the Palipehutu-FNL rebel group (Forces Nationales de Libération) has increased during April in and around the capital of Bujumbura displacing thousands throughout the country.  Food security remains a problem with 600,000 people needing food aid according to a recent UN report.6
Congo	1999	UN; MONUC	Widespread abuses carried out by United Nations personnel against refugees in the Democratic Republic of Congo; Personnel from the U.N. Mission in the Democrat­ic Republic of the Congo stand accused of at least 150 major human rights violations. The crimes involve rape and forced prostitution of women and young girls across the country, including inside a refugee camp in the town of Bunia in north­eastern Congo.7
Côte d'Ivoire/ Ivory Coast	2004	United Nations Operation in Côte d'Ivoire (UNOCI)	Moroccan soldiers taking part in the mission are accused of rape.8 Cote d’Ivoire continues to experience periodic episodes of political unrest and violence since a 2002 failed coup attempt evolved into an armed rebellion that split the country in two.9
Haiti	2004	United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH)	Deepening poverty and ineffective governance have left Haiti at risk for renewed violence and political instability. 10 2006 - UN personnel accused of rape and exploitation 11
Liberia	2003	United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL)	2006 - UN personnel accused of rape and exploitation12
Rwanda	1993–1994	United Nations Observer Mission Uganda-Rwanda (UNOMUR)	U.N. peacekeepers in Rwanda stood by as Hutu slaughtered some 800,000 Tutsi13 Post conflict dire humanitarian situation
Somalia	1993–1995	United Nations Operation in Somalia II (UNOSOM II)	There is still no central government in place Airports closed, militias compete for space and economic advantage December 24 2007 Ethiopia’s army invaded Somalia, killing hundreds of rebels and encountering virtually no opposition; engaging in clean up operations. 14
Sudan	2007	United Nations/African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID)	200,000; 2.5 million people displaced…Darfur today is still characterized by insecurity, lawlessness and impunity15 Inability to provide promising results.

Note: Not only do peacekeeping operations come at a high material cost, but they too come at a high humanitarian cost. The examples above demonstrate how even when deployed under an international set of standards, unprofessional soldiers, usually from developing countries, engage in inhumane behavior, which in turn lays the grounds for further instability. On a further note, even collaboration between numerous organization is a difficult issue (such as the case of former Yugoslavia) - NATO, the EU and the UN carried out operations without a clear system of the chain of command or structural order.

Fig. F: Millennium Development Goals at a stand-still in disadvantaged countries

Incompatible IMF Policies	Indirect control exercised by the IMF over recipient governments' macroeconomic policies is straitjacketing their ability to deal with urgent social, health, and economic issues, such as the HIV/AIDS pandemic, and likewise the ability of their electorates to influence those policies. [Countries] cannot [meet the MDGs] without exceeding spending limits imposed by the IMF, thus making it effectively impossible for them to meet their MDG commitments and the demands of their electorates.
Absence of universal commitment	Developed Countries are not meeting the minimum GDP percentage aimed at foreign aid (0.7%); a basic requirement of the MDGs. Currently, only Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden do so.
Unexpected Economic Crisis	According to estimates of the World Bank and others, attaining the MDGs will require at least $ 50 billion per year in additional aid (or a doubling of current aid levels).16 That amount has not been satisfied in any year since 2000. It is hard to imagine how this amount can be guaranteed following the current global economic crisis. It is unclear what affects this crisis produced worldwide in sectors critical to the MDGs (unemployment rates, financial redistribution by governments, different funds allocated for different projects; the priorities have changed)
Questionable measuring criteria	The goals were established as global targets. But they are delivered, and measured (not always reliably), within individual countries. Some observers question whether the goals are distorting aid allocation.[17]

---

1.) Foreignpolicy.com - The List: The World’s Forgotten Territorial Disputes – July 2006 - http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3534 – accessed Mar 06 09

2.) Michael T. Klare. Resource Wars – The new landscape of Global Conflict. Appendix. P. 227-231. 2002

3.) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations – Representation in Afghanistan – Food Security Programme – 2003-2004 - http://www.fao.org/world/afghanistan/proj_fait_en.htm - accessed Mar 06 09

4.) Aaron T. Wolf. Trends in Transboundary Water Resources: Lessons for Cooperative Projects in the Middle East. The International Development Research Center. http://www.idrc.ca/CONFLICT/ev-33233-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html - accessed Mar 11 09

5.) Max Boot. Paving the Road to Hell: The Failure of UN Peacekeeping. Foreign Affairs. March/April 2000. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/55875/max-boot/paving-the-road-to-hell-the-failure-of-u-n-peacekeeping - accessed Mar 13 09

6.) Committee on Conscience. Burundi Current Situation. United States Memorial Museum. Spring 2008. http://www.ushmm.org/conscience/alert/burundi/contents/02-current/ - accessed Mar 14 09

7.) Nile Gardiner, Ph.D.The U.N. Peacekeeping Scandal in the Congo: How Congress Should Respond. The Heritage Foundation. March 22, 2005. http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/hl868.cfm - accessed Mar 14 09

8.) BBC News. UN probes 'abuse' in Ivory Coast. 23 July 2007. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6909664.stm - accessed Mar 14 09

9.) United States Department of State  Travel Warning. December 15, 2008. http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_915.html - accessed Mar 14 09

10.) The Haiti Support Group. Haiti News. March 3 2009.  http://haitisupport.gn.apc.org/fea_news_index.html - accessed Mar 14 09

11.) BBC News. UN probes 'abuse' in Ivory Coast. 23 July 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6909664.stm

12.) IBID

13.) Max Boot. Paving the Road to Hell: The Failure of UN Peacekeeping. Foreign Affairs. March/April 2000. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/55875/max-boot/paving-the-road-to-hell-the-failure-of-u-n-peacekeeping - accessed Mar 13 09

14.) David Smock. On the Issues: Somalia. United Sates Institute of Peace. January 9, 2007. http://www.usip.org/on_the_issues/somalia.html - accessed Mar 14 09

15.) CNN.com.  U.N.: 100,000 more dead in Darfur than reported. April 22, 2008. http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/04/22/darfur.holmes/index.html. - accessed Mar 14 09

16.) Dr Reinhard Hermle. Assessing Progress in Meeting the MDGs and ODA Commitments. United Nations General Assembly High Level Dialogue on Financing for Development New York, 28 October 2003. http://www.venro.org/fileadmin/Publikationen/Einzelveroeffentlichungen/Entwicklungsfinanzierung/Statement%20Hermle%20FfD.PDF – accessed Mar 19 09

17.) Anne Perkins .Time to review the development goals. The Gaurdian. September 2008 . http://www.guardian.co.uk/katine/2008/sep/25/aidanddevelopment.news - accessed Mar 13 09