You are visiting India, Bangladesh and Nepal on this visit. Tell us about your mission.
My purpose was to speak to several countries who are amongst the biggest contributors to the UN Peacekeeping mission. In this year, Bangladesh is first, India next, and Nepal is fifth when it comes to contributions, so that makes them crucial to our operations.
Peacekeeping is a partnership, between the UN Security Council, the contributing countries, and Under-secretary general, so we need to have dialogue. I am glad that the commitment of these countries is solid, and we have about 120,000 peacekeepers this year. I have been working towards one issue in the past few years, though, and that is that 95 per cent of the peacekeepers are from the (global) South, and the North (Europe, U.S., etc) only contribute 5 per cent to the UNPKF.
That is not sustainable and I have been telling NATO, EU countries, in 2014, when you leave Afghanistan, you must come back in a more significant way to the UNPKF.
Did you discuss the post-pullout situation in Afghanistan with Indian officials today?
Well it is a broader discussion of a shared vision on the role of the UN in Afghanistan. The most important is that we must be available to support the political processes. The second is human rights — to protect the progress made, especially for women. And finally the UN family must work as one in fighting terror.
In your discussions, did they bring up other issues they have with the UNPKF?
To begin with, they were on matters of the changed nature of engagement, about the issue of robustness in the mission — the kind of missions we have seen in the Congo and South Sudan, are issues that need discussion.
The big concern for India is the changing nature of mission that Indian troops are sent into — it is no longer about guarding a ceasefire line, it is more and more about taking on groups... we have lost troops.
Yes, I remember how Indian soldiers were killed in South Sudan last year. But as you said the nature of the missions has changed. What used to be monitoring, observing missions are now multi-dimensional. In other words what has happened is unacceptable and people are massacred right next to our blue helmets. .
One of the answers is the concept of robustness, mobility, and the use of certain technologies. The UAVs (drones) that we fly in the Congo, for example, are having a huge impact. We need more helicopters to move our troops. The UN has after a long time agreed to raise the allowances for them, which is a good step.
Has the UNPKF become a symbol of global inequality... that poor countries bleed, while richer countries only pay?
Well yes, I was shocked by the inequality, but I think it is changing. Money is one thing, blood is another. It is not a good distinction to have. Smaller countries also pay, and it’s not fair.
Peacekeeping is an act of generosity, and living up to the charter of the UN. The US and European countries make the point that they do contribute troops outside of the UN, for e.g. Afghanistan’s ISAF, and Mali, and the hope I have is that they will now look to contribute those troops to the UNPKF now.
And your expectations from India... do you need more troops?
Well that keeps changing, on a real time basis, so we keep discussing them.
Two months ago, the Indian government asked your mission, the UNMOGIP to vacate its government appointed bungalow, to give up subsidies it had been receiving. Did the government explain its position?
It was mentioned, and I said we are taking appropriate measures. Regards the bungalow in Delhi, we have found new premises and will move in as soon as possible. We discussed the other aspects... but nothing drastic.
The government has said that the UNMOGIP has outlasted its utility, and said it should wind up the mission. How do you respond to that?
I have seen that statement. It is their prerogative to explain their views, but the mandate of UNMOGIP was established by the UN Security Council 60 odd years ago, and only the Security Council can undo that decision, look at the mandate again and decide. So it isn’t my decision, and I can’t comment further.
But do you think it’s unfair to keep those troops at the Line of Control without them serving any purpose? India has not lodged any reports or complaints since 1971.
Its purpose is simply to observe what is happening and to report that, and I think their very presence on that line, to a certain degree, contributes to confidence. So one should never lose that from your sight.
So it is for India to go to the Security Council.
If they so feel, yes.
