The blue berets symbolise the best protection the world has to offer terrified, desperate people in war-torn countries. From Korea in 1949 to Bosnia four decades later, United Nations troops have played major roles in preventing wider conflict and restoring peace. During the last decade, UN peacekeeping missions have invited increasing criticism on a number of counts. For being launched in half-hearted fashion and too late to be effective. For suffering from confused objectives. These were flaws in the conception of missions and management of crisis. But the blue berets themselves continued to stand for hope and goodwill wherever they went.

Never until now have UN troops been associated with senseless brutality of the kind which reportedly occurred in Somalia in 1993. These are not instances of things that can and do go wrong under the stress of war, of aberrant savagery, excessive use of force against armed opponents, a few soldiers going berserk, a temporary breakdown of discipline. What the London Observer has brought to light about cold-blooded atrocities against children, women and prisoners allegedly by Canadian, Belgian and Italian soldiers is shocking beyond belief. Imagine they are among the countries which preach human rights values to Third World countries!

The world will be watching closely the outcome of commissions set up in each of those countries to inquire into the incidents. No doubt international human rights organisations will press for indictments of the guilty and severe punishment. No doubt there will be demands for explanations. Why are the Geneva conventions not applicable to troops of all countries at all times and places? Do not Canada, Belgium and Italy (and other Western countries) customarily send regular, well-trained soldiers on UN missions?

If not, why not? How can education in human rights be improved in those countries and particularly within their military establishments? What reparations are being made to the victims? When all the answers are in and the laws of Canada, Italy and Belgium have taken their course, the UN will still have to provide some answers of its own to the Somalian child roasted over a fire and mother whose teenaged son was beaten to death. What will ensure such savagery never occurs under a UN flag again?

UN peacekeeping missions are organised, if that is the correct word, around a mish-mash of disciplines and rules. Although troops drawn from various countries represent the UN in the field, each contingent maintains its own regulations. Operational control of the Somalia force was in the hands of US commanders. It was only fortuitous in these circumstances that there was not more chaos and mayhem. The UN proved helpless when Washington aborted the mission by pulling out after some US troops were killed. And it proved helpless again when troops in blue berets killed innocents. That experience, long delays in mounting missions and the hazards of a many-headed command system are strong reasons for the UN to maintain its own peacekeeping force. Former secretary general Boutros Ghali favoured the idea but received little support. Washington, for one, was not enthusiastic about a rival global policeman. Nevertheless, the proposal needs to be revived and debated. Ways must be found to meet the UN's original mission and purpose.

Copyright © 1997 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.