Sierra Leone mission was an experiment that failed, feel UN officials

Sierra Leone mission was an experiment that failed, feel UN officials
GAURAV C. SAWANT

NEW DELHI, SEPT 24: Indian forces could never really settle down in Sierra Leone despite maintaining a presence for almost two years in the strife-torn west African nation. Even before the Indian Army went to Sierra Leone with guns, armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and attack helicopters in December 1999, Indian doctors and military observers had been maintaining a hospital there for almost a year.

The United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) was an experiment which several UN personnel feel has failed. The UN for the first time began a wet-lease system where troop contributing countries (TCCs) had to provide for the soldiers themselves and the UN paid for it. For example, every country had to provide guns, bullets, bullet-proof jackets, helmets, communication sets, tents, tanks, trucks and toilets, etc for their troops.

``But TCCs were generally too poor to provide for their troops and poorly-equipped soldiers landed in Sierra Leone, unable to go out into the jungle or maintain peace,'' sources said. Rich countries do not send troops and poor nations contribute troops who refuse to move out of their camps in the absence of equipment. This left the mission a non-starter,'' UN sources said.

A smooth relationship with the UN force headquarters might have helped overcome problems but the force commander (FC) Major General Vijay Kumar Jetley was at daggers drawn with both the special representative of the secretary general (SRSG) A. Adneji and the deputy force commander (DFC) Brigadier Gaba, both Nigerians. Being the largest troop contributors, the Nigerians were confident that the commander of the UNAMSIL would be a Nigerian when the ECOMOG (Economic Community of West African States) army packed up after reaching a stalemate.

Jetley felt that the SRSG and DFC always kept Nigerian interests paramount even if it meant scuttling the missions' success at large. The command and control conflict cost the mission dearly. In fact, most UNAMSIL force commanders called their countries to ratify orders given by Jetley before acting on them. This caused delay in fast-changing situations.

``Trouble with Nigeria may not have been the only reason but certainly was an important aspect in Indian decision to pull out. The UN tried to downplay the conflict between the FC, the SRSG and DFC as clash of personalities. They said that the force strength was being increased from 13,000 to 20,000 and they wanted a three-star general to command the UNAMSIL (Jetley is a two-star general). We were insisting that the three-star general also be ours but the problem would have persisted then too,'' sources said.

The mission lacked transport for movement of troops and personnel, communication equipment to far-flung areas to keep in touch with the force headquarters, fuel for replenishment, rations for soldiers and even potable water. ``Another reason for India pulling out is that India too was finding it difficult to provide for its 3,000 troops there. Though India flew one IL-76 aircraft once between India and Sierra Leone, it was not found feasible and the flight was cancelled this month,'' he added.

Then there was a tremendous conflict of interests. The British were operating in Sierra Leone outside the UN forces but in total confidence of the nation's government which felt closer to the British than to the UNAMSIL. ``The British have vested interests in Sierra Leone. Diamonds and rutile are principle motivators of economic policy of these advanced countries which want the UN forces to patrol diamond mines so that they can harness its profits,'' sources added.

The civil war for the control of diamond mines has been going on for over a decade and Britain is among the countries propagating for a more robust mandate and closer policing of the diamond areas around Kono, Koidu and Kailahun. ``India has been against the mandate being changed to peace enforcement. India sent 3,000 toops and additional personnel as doctors and military observers to maintain peace. But unwittingly the Indian troops got embroiled in the war between the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) and the forces loyal to President Ahmed Tejan Kebbah, a British sympathiser.

The American policy of creating regional power heads also was not in sync with the Indian deployment in Sierra Leone. ``The US as a policy is creating regional power centres. For West Africa it is Nigeria. Therefore the US is also training, equipping and providing for four battalions (approximately 3,200 personnel) of the Nigerian army to be deployed in Sierra Leone,'' an official said.

UN forces presently control just a little over a third of the country. The rest is under the control of the rebel forces and factions. The UN presence in the diamond mining area was minimal and presently is non-existent.

``The Indian Army -- which is anyway buying casualties in Jammu and Kashmir (J-K) -- and along the line of control (LoC) can little afford body bags from West Africa where it has no stakes. Therefore, it is in the best interests of both the Indian Army and the UN that our forces pull out from Sierra Leone,'' sources said.