TRAINING STANDARDS FOR UNITED NATIONS MILITARY

OBSERVERS: THE FOUNDATION OF EXCELLENCE

by Larry M Forster1
Director, US Army Peacekeeping Institute, Centre for Strategic Leadership,
Pennsylvania

Published in African Security Review Vol 6 No. 4, 1997

INTRODUCTION

The first United Nations peacekeeping operations were military observer missions,
generally assigned to monitor or supervise cease-fires, truces, or armistice agreements in
conflict areas. UN observers were first deployed in the Balkans in 1947, and in Palestine
as the UN Truce Supervision Organisation (UNTSO), at the conclusion of the first Arab-
Israeli war in June 1948. Peacekeeping is commonly associated with the UN after the
establishment of its first peacekeeping force in response to the Suez crisis of 1956.
However, more than half the organisation's peacekeeping operations before 1988 had
consisted only of unarmed UN military observers (UNMOs). Ever since UNTSO,
military observers have been deployed unarmed, the reasoning being that possible
antagonists would be less likely to use their arms against unarmed personnel. This rule
was broken only in 1989, when observers of the UN Transition Assistance Group
(UNTAG) were authorised to carry side arms for self-protection against wild animals in
certain parts of Namibia.2

Traditionally, the primary tasks of UNMOs have been the supervision, monitoring,
verification and reporting of cease-fire agreements, separations and withdrawals of
forces, as well as the cessation of foreign assistance to former belligerents. Since 1989,
however, UNMOs have had to accept numerous other organisational and representative
tasks and responsibilities in the performance of their mandated duties, including:

 monitoring of the disarmament, demobilisation, regrouping and cantonment

processes of military forces;

 assisting in the location and confiscation of weapons caches;

 maintaining liaison with and between belligerent factions, other (civilian) UN

agencies, non-government organisations (NGOs), and neighbouring countries;
and

 providing assistance to humanitarian agencies in the supervision and conduct of

prisoners of war exchanges, food distribution, the provision of medical care, etc.

The diversity and complexity of the tasks of the military observer will depend on the
mandate of the particular mission and the prevailing political and military situation.
UNMOs usually perform such tasks alone or in pairs, in a foreign cultural and linguistic
environment, under difficult living conditions, and in high stress situations. To cope with
such challenges, officers selected as UN military observers need to be physically fit,
psychologically sound, mature in attitude and outlook, and equipped with the appropriate
qualifications and experience for the mission.3

HEROES AND VILLAINS

The courage and altruism of the many UNMOs who have served the cause of peace since
1948 may be admired by all. Those who have been UNMOs are especially appreciative
of the importance and difficulty of the job they do. Observer missions, if performed well,
have been extremely important in the cause of peace and represent a great "economy of
force", by making a large impact on the peace process for a small expenditure of
resources. There are many stories of UNMOs as the heroes of various missions, such as:

 the major who risked his life to interject himself between belligerent parties and
negotiate a cease-fire;

 the captain who was subjected to abuse and trials of courage before being allowed
to proceed through a checkpoint as he tested the freedom of movement essential
to mission accomplishment;

 UNMOs who risked their lives to save a child;

 observers who maintained lonely vigils during long nights of fighting all around
their observation posts to acquire necessary information;

 UNMOs who exhibited calm professionalism as they assessed a military situation

while under great stress, and then provided a clear description by radio to
headquarters; and

 observers who, by their presence and their credibility helped to shape the
resumption of the peace process.

While these acts of courage, character, and competence represent the best in UNMOs,
there are, unfortunately, also many instances of the opposite. There are a host of
anecdotes of UNMOs who were embarrassments: who did not know a T-72 tank from a
M113, or how to navigate by a road map, let alone determine the grid co-ordinates of an
off-road location. There are plenty of horror stories and consequent expenses and loss of
operational capability relating to vehicle accidents, by far the major cause of UNMO
casualties. There are also a number of observers who, through immaturity or poor
judgement, have had unprofessional relationships with the local populace, or who have
been involved in illegal acts. These individuals were not just personal failures, they often
tarnished the reputation of the organisation, jeopardised the mission, and, in some cases,
were needlessly injured or even killed through ignorance, incompetence, or immaturity.
In short, all too often officers have been deployed who were not credible in a
peacekeeping environment, lacking the character, military skills, or language proficiency
to serve and so enhance the reputation of their parent organisation and of the UN. To a
large extent, these problems can be attributed to inadequate and inconsistent selection and
training procedures. Good training makes the best even better, while ensuring others have
at least the minimal skills necessary to perform up to expectations.

THE IMPORTANCE OF SELECTION AND TRAINING

The unfortunate imbalances in quality between the officers of the different nations and
even from within the cohorts of a particular nation must be recognised from the outset.
This should not be unexpected, given the different military 'cultures,' training standards,
and selection criteria present in the various contributing nations. Also, some national
contingents are staffed with officers who are not part of the land forces (naval and air
force officers). These individuals cannot be expected to have the same proficiency in
soldier skills most directly related to UNMO duties as their counterparts from the army or
marines.

Some nations select officers from their reserve components, and others from their active
forces. Officers from both sources may be equally good, but they require different
training strategies. There are also occasions where officers are picked to be observers, not
for their military skills and standing in their organisations, but because of language
proficiency or other specialised skills required for the mission. Such officers obviously
require greater military preparation before joining the mission. Admittedly, there are also
officers who volunteer from less than pure motives (usually financial), and who then may
not perform up to their potential.

It must also be acknowledged that peacekeeping duty requires personal attributes not
necessarily found in all successful officers. In addition to military proficiency, observers
must have the right temperament, excellent interpersonal skills, patience, the ability to
assess and report, and uncommon courage and commitment. It is not always easy to
measure and select with respect to these attributes, yet they are as much the foundations
of success for an UNMO as is proficiency in specified military skills.

It requires a tremendous effort on the part of contributing nations to maintain the current
level of over 1 400 UNMOs deployed world-wide. However, in order to maximise the
positive and minimise the negative with respect to UNMOs, all contributing nations
would be greatly aided if the UN and the primary donor nations could agree on selection
criteria, the exact nature of the required skills, and the standard of proficiency to be
achieved. In addition, those responsible for national selection and training must have a
clear idea of the attributes required for UNMO duty, and there must be a 'feedback
mechanism' such as is required of all good training.

KEY ISSUES ON THE SELECTION AND TRAINING AGENDA

The UN Department of Peace-Keeping Operations (DPKO) Training Unit has already
made laudable progress in determining selection criteria and training guidelines, in
consultation with a variety of national peacekeeping training centres. To further the work
already under way, a number of issues demand speedy resolution. Among these are
agreement on a generic job description for UNMOs, with associated requirements, the
determination of selection criteria for UNMOs (experience/seniority, physical condition,
personal attributes, etc.), and agreement on adequate generic and predeployment training.
The latter should include:

 familiarisation with the UN system and organisation;

 general UN administration, reports and procedures;

 knowledge of applicable international, local, operational (mandate, etc.) law;

 understanding of legal status (privileges/immunities/ liabilities);

 proficiency in required military skills and their application in a peacekeeping

environment;

 training (if needed) in communication skills (verbal/written), and in the use of

common equipment;

 driving proficiency in the types of vehicles and terrain found in the operational
area;

 psychological preparation/stress training (to deal with dissonance, boredom,

anxiety, duties alien to professional experience, and preparation for return to
families);

 the development of negotiation/mediation skills and techniques; and

 training for the expanded duties of UNMOs in some missions (such as election
monitoring).

Moreover, consensus on training certification is needed, if minimum standards are to be

upheld. Admittedly, this will entail a very difficult process, given traditional national
sensitivities to any form of oversight when it comes to military training. There is also an
urgent need for the establishment of an effective UN 'feedback mechanism' to augment
that of national channels, and to give trainers information on how well their former
students performed.

The development of enforceable standards is truly the basis for enhancing excellence: to
ensure a level of proficiency in required skills, take some of the general training burden
from the chief military observers, and to fulfil the expectations of professionalism.
However, selection criteria and standards, as reasonable and necessary as they may be,
will be difficult to certify and enforce, for the following reasons:

 one country's definition of compliance to a standard is likely to differ from others;

 the lack of resources and realistic political considerations place limits on what
UNDPKO can check and certify; and

 as desirable as it may be to require all UNMO candidates to attend an approved

course(s), with over 65 participating nations (with widely differing resources),
this would be very hard to do.

Despite such challenges, the articulation of clear criteria and standards is still highly
desirable as an aim. Even without perfect compliance, standards will still promote a
greater degree of excellence. Besides, there are a number of steps which can realistically
be taken by peacekeeping training organisations in order to promote uniform compliance,
such as:

 initial agreement on the selection criteria, tasks and standards to be trained;

 establishment of active support from the senior military leadership to promote

standards;

 establishment of a model course that chief instructors can attend to refine

instruction and to synchronise programmes;

 invitations to UNDPKO for 'co-ordination visits' (with no official report to be

filed) to help promote standardisation of training content and results; and

 as with civilian police, invitation to UNDPKO to advise on the

selection/screening process, to be present when candidates are interviewed, and to
advise on acceptability.

On the other hand, the UN Secretariat should also be encouraged to take more assertive
steps towards enhancing the performance of UNMOs. Among others, it should:

 track countries that provide UNMOs who are consistently poor performers and
recommend steps they can take towards compliance with standards;

 quickly repatriate those UNMOs who do not meet the standards, with expenses to
be paid by the contributing country;

 make tough political choices to deny a nation's participation if recommendations

are not heeded; and
  hold the countries of UNMOs who damage expensive equipment (like vehicles)
due to poor training liable for repair/replacement costs, and hold the UNMO
liable if the damage/loss was due to neglect.

CONCLUSION

All professional officers want to perform well, and would consider anything less than
acceptable performance as a discredit to self, nation, and the UN. It is therefore
incumbent upon both the UN and national peacekeeping training organisations to identify
those selection and training criteria that will help to promote consistent success – a
winning situation for all concerned. Standards will allow the good observers to be even
better, and they will ease the burden of supplementary training on supervisors in the field,
while enhancing the overall reputation of the UN.

When the lives of officers and the success of the mission is at stake, reasonable and
achievable standards cannot be sacrificed to political expedience. UNMOs must indeed
be recruited from the broad international community, but they must be representative of
the finest qualities to be found in military officers world-wide, where training, character
and competence are essential to excellence.

ENDNOTES

1. This article is based on a presentation made to the 3rd Annual Meeting of the
International Association of Peacekeeping Training Centres, Malta, 25-26 April
1997.

2. F T Liu, United Nations Peacekeeping and the Non-Use of Force, International

Peace Academy Occasional Paper Series, Lynne Rainier, Boulder and London,
1992, pp. 13-14.

3. UNDPKO, United Nations Military Observers Handbook, United Nations, New

York, 1995, pp. 22-23.