Chapter 19
International coordination
19.1
A crucial aspect of international peacekeeping operations is the
interaction that takes place between participating nations. Typically, this
interaction is coordinated by global organisations, such as the United Nations
(UN), or by regional organisations—such as the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO), the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) or the
Pacific Islands Forum (PIF).
19.2
This chapter examines Australia's engagement with global and regional
organisations in peacekeeping operations. It first explores Australia's
engagement with the UN before examining Australia's contribution to regional
organisations. It concludes by identifying initiatives that could strengthen Australia's
capacity to contribute to global and regional peacekeeping initiatives.
Australia's engagement with the UN
19.3
As outlined in Chapter 2, Australia recognises the important
contribution made by the UN to maintaining international peace and security. Australia
also recognises that the UN remains a key international partner in policy
development and information sharing in peacekeeping.
19.4
Australia supports the activities of the UN in a number of important
ways: it provides personnel for peacekeeping operations, it contributes to the
UN's peacekeeping budget, it participates in discussions about policy
development and, where possible, it contributes to the UN's ongoing reform of
its peacekeeping operations.[1]
19.5
All member states share the costs of UN peacekeeping operations. Australia's
annual share of the UN peacekeeping budget is approximately $100 million. This
equates to a contribution of approximately 1.8 per cent of the approved total
cost.[2]
As of January 2008, the top 10 providers of assessed contributions (that is,
non-voluntary financial contributions) to UN peacekeeping operations were: the United
States, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, China, Canada, Spain
and the Republic of Korea.
Contributors to UN peacekeeping operations[3]
19.6
A nation's assessed contribution is determined by the General Assembly. It
takes into account the relative economic wealth of member states with permanent
members of the Security Council required to pay a larger share.
19.7
Regarding the contribution of personnel to UN operations, as of 31 March 20 08, Australia contributed 107 military and police personnel and was ranked 62nd
internationally.[4]
Beyond this commitment, it should also be noted that Australia has over 900
personnel committed to regional peacekeeping operations.
Australia's Permanent Mission to
the UN
19.8
Australia's Permanent Mission to the UN in New York is the key
instrument for Australia's engagement with the UN. It is headed the Ambassador
and Permanent Representative to the UN.
19.9
Staff at the mission are responsible for engaging on a regular basis
with UN bodies and member states on various issues, including UN peacekeeping
reform and the development of doctrine and policy. These staff are seconded
from DFAT, AusAID, Defence and the AFP. DFAT staff monitor and engage in the
work of different committees, including those involved with aspects of
peacekeeping operations; AusAID staff manage engagement with the Peacebuilding
Support Office; and Defence and AFP staff engage with the UN Secretariat on
operational matters.[5]
19.10
In addition, the AFP's Police Adviser liaises with the Department of
Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO), and facilitates engagement in training and
policy. The Police Adviser also represents Australia at the Special Committee
on Peacekeeping (C34).[6]
Agency contact with the UN
19.11
Individual government agencies have direct contact with the UN through
liaison officers; nonetheless, DFAT tends to be the lead government agency in
coordinating Australia's engagement with the UN on peacekeeping issues. For
example, the United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste (UNMIT) required DFAT
to work closely with the UN Secretariat, operation partners and the Timor-Leste
Government.[7]
19.12
The AFP regularly contributes to the work of the DPKO's best practices
unit, and several AFP officers have held key UN positions, including the Deputy
Senior Police Adviser in Cyprus (UNFICYP).[8]
19.13
AusAID noted its work with the UN Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), explaining that it had provided funding to OCHA's
Civil–Military Coordination Section in a bid to help achieve more effective
civil–military coordination.[9]
Placements in the UN DPKO
19.14
The UN departments responsible for peacekeeping are the Department of
Peacekeeping Operations and the Department of Field Support (formerly, the
Department of Peacekeeping Operations, DPKO).[10]
19.15
Prior to this restructure, the DPKO had a policy that each member
country could have up to three seconded officers working in the DPKO at any one
time. As at July 2007, Australia had two secondees from the Department of
Defence: one was a training officer in the Training and Evaluation Service and
the other was a planning officer in the Military Planning Service.[11]
The third secondee was from the AFP: Mr Andrew Hughes was appointed in August
2007 to the position of Senior Police Adviser in the DPKO, the most senior
police position in the UN.[12]
In this position, Mr Hughes is responsible for 'coordinating police involvement
in UN peace efforts, including establishing doctrine, procedures and
standards'.[13]
19.16
As at July 2007, there were a further 14 Australian nationals
(non-government employees) working in the DPKO.[14]
Increasing representation in the UN
19.17
Some submitters and witnesses to the inquiry expressed the view that Australia
could increase its representation in the UN, particularly senior staff, and
that more could be done to harness the skills of secondees upon their return.[15]
19.18
Major General Ford claimed that the ADF has a culture that does not
value secondments to the UN:
So first of all there has to be an acceptance that going and
doing a UN assignment is actually good for your career and is as demanding as
being the battery commander or being the brigade major in the deployable force
headquarters up in Brisbane or Townsville. That is not accepted yet. It is not
seen as a good career move to go off and have a posting, in the police or the
military.[16]
19.19
Major General Smith, Austcare, also commented that the ADF needed to be
confident that the personnel selected for UN secondments would return to the
ADF, thereby allowing the organisation to benefit from their experiences:
We just recently sent a major general to the Middle East...I am
talking about the UNTSO, the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation—for
his terminal posting. I think that is a critical place to have somebody who can
come back to Australia and give us the benefit of his experience there.[17]
19.20
The ADF and DFAT both stated that they would like to see as many
Australians as possible in the UN secretariat, particularly at the more senior
levels.[18]
Lt Gen Gillespie noted that the ADF considers 'very carefully every bid that
we get from the United Nations asking us whether we want to contribute [to] particular
operations and appointments'.[19]
19.21
The current government has identified its membership of the UN as one of
the 'three pillars' of its foreign policy and the Prime Minister has recently
announced that Australia will seek election as a non-permanent member of the UN
Security Council for 2013–2014. The committee also notes that DFAT's Portfolio
Budget Statements 2008–09 states that DFAT 'will seek to secure further senior
Australian representation in the United Nations'.[20]
The committee acknowledges these attempts to further strengthen Australia's
engagement with the UN.
Committee view
19.22
The committee considers that it is in Australia's interests for
government personnel to be seconded to the UN. It also believes that government
departments could be more active in seeking out these opportunities. While the committee
considers that this would be of particular value for senior government
officers, it sees little value in secondments being used as 'terminal
postings'. The committee strongly believes that the knowledge of returning
personnel should be harnessed by the home agency to improve the agency's
understanding of UN processes, and facilitate Australia's UN engagement.
Additionally, such secondments would help develop the capacity of Australian
officers to work with other international organisations such as the World Bank
and the International Monetary Fund.
Recommendation 25
19.23
The committee recommends that Australian government agencies actively
pursue opportunities to second senior officers to the United Nations.
Furthermore, that such secondments form part of a broader departmental and
whole-of-government strategy designed to make better use of the knowledge and
experience gained by seconded officers. In other words, appointments should not
be terminal postings and should be perceived as important and valuable career
opportunities.
Regional engagement
19.24
Although the UN remains the prime organisation for international peace
and security, the increasing number and scope of peace operations has led to a greater
emphasis on regional peacekeeping coalitions and stronger regional engagement. As
noted in Chapter 2, individual countries, regional organisations and coalitions
conduct peacekeeping operations within the framework of Chapter VIII of the UN
Charter. Defence underlined the importance of Australia's engagement in
regional peacekeeping operations:
It is in Australia's interest to actively pursue the enhancement
of regional cooperation in peace operations capability and interoperability.
This has the added benefit of generating regional confidence and enhancing Australia's
international relationships.[21]
19.25
In some cases, where it is vital to Australia's interest to have a
peacekeeping operation in the region, Australia will look to other countries
for both political and material support. For example, the committee has
discussed Australia's successful efforts to marshal international support for
INTERFET. At that time, the then Minister for Foreign Affairs recognised that
INTERFET needed to be 'a multinational force' and expressed his appreciation to
the regional partners for their participation in the force: New Zealand,
Thailand, the Philippines, Singapore and Malaysia. The minister also recognised
the support given to the mission by Korea, China and Japan and assistance provided
by the UK and the US.[22]
19.26
DFAT plays a key role in engaging regional organisations and contributes
to the capacity of these organisations to respond to regional security
challenges.[23]
Other agencies too, such as the ADF and the AFP, continue to build
relationships with partner organisations in the region to prevent and respond
to crises.[24]
19.27
Unlike security arrangements in some other regions—such as NATO in Europe—the
Asia–Pacific does not have a collective security institution to manage conflict.
Peacekeeping arrangements tend to be approached on a case-by-case basis. In
this section of the report, the committee considers the existing forums
contributing to the region's capacity for peacekeeping operations, as well as
other regional engagement initiatives undertaken by Australian government
agencies.
ASEAN Regional Forum
19.28
The ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) seeks to promote open dialogue on
political and security cooperation in the region. It was established at the ASEAN
Ministerial Meeting in Singapore in 1993, and the inaugural meeting of the ARF took
place in Bangkok in July 1994. The objectives of the ARF are to:
- foster constructive dialogue and consultation on political and
security issues of common interest and concern; and
- make significant contributions to efforts towards
confidence-building and preventive diplomacy in the Asia–Pacific region.[25]
19.29
While the ARF provides a structure for improving mutual understanding
and preparedness for peacekeeping operations, it is not a collective security
organisation.[26]
Nevertheless, it has taken some important steps to help coordinate security and
peacekeeping-related endeavours among its members. The ARF encourages closer
military-to-military and civil–military engagement in areas such as disaster
relief and pandemic response. DFAT reported that the general principles being
developed have broader applications to peacekeeping operations.[27]
For example, the first ARF peacekeeping experts group meeting was co-hosted in Malaysia
by Australia and Malaysia in early 2007. The meeting was to share information,
standardise doctrine and develop a better understanding of each country's
approach to peacekeeping and deployment. It was attended by military and
foreign affairs representatives from 24 of the 26 ARF member countries.[28]
DFAT expected that New Zealand and Singapore would host a similar meeting in
2008.[29]
19.30
Defence commented that they were seeking to promote the ARF's capacity:
Our long term goal is the evolution of a regional framework for
standardising approaches to peace operations, conducting multilateral exercises
and the planning and conduct of operations by a unified regional task force. Australia
is promoting within the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) the establishment of a
network of peacekeeping expertise and the development of ASEAN CIMIC standard
operating procedures.[30]
19.31
DFAT made a similar statement about Australia's work within the ARF.[31]
Committee view
19.32
The committee acknowledges Australia's work with like-minded ASEAN
nations to develop a regional peacekeeping capability. It believes that these
endeavours could be consolidated at both planning and operational levels and
sees particular value in Australia seeking to establish joint training
exercises with ASEAN nations.
Pacific Islands Forum
19.33
The Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) is an inter-governmental organisation
which seeks to enhance cooperation between the independent countries of the Pacific.
Founded in 1971 as the South Pacific Forum, PIF is the region’s premier
political and economic policy organisation and has 16 member states. Its
headquarters are in Suva, Fiji, and the forum meets annually to develop
collective responses to regional issues.[32]
19.34
The PIF can mandate peacekeeping operations through the Biketawa
Declaration. The declaration was adopted at the 31st Summit of PIF Leaders in Kiribati
in 2000. It provides 'a mechanism through which [the Forum] can call on members
to uphold democratic principles and to take certain actions, including targeted
measures, if a member state breaches those principles'. The declaration was the
mechanism through which the PIF endorsed RAMSI in 2003.[33]
19.35
RAMSI demonstrates the potential for PIF to take a central role in
promoting peace and stability in the southwest Pacific.[34]
It is a multilateral, regional operation whose legitimacy stems, in large
measure, from the strong regional support for the mission. DFAT emphasised this
point:
The participation since December 2006 of all sixteen Pacific
Island Forum member nations, and successive endorsements of RAMSI by PIF
Leaders' Meetings, and by the Forum Eminent Persons Group, demonstrates the
level of regional support for RAMSI and adds to the mission's credibility as a
regional initiative. The contribution and participation of regional personnel
resulted in a level of ownership of what was perceived to be a regional
solution to a regional problem.[35]
19.36
Even though PIF was instrumental in establishing RAMSI, its role in the
implementation of the mission has, until recently, been limited. A review
undertaken in 2007, which was prompted by the concerns of the Solomon Islands
Government, noted:
...RAMSI lacked a regional oversight
mechanism to anchor RAMSI's regional character not only in terms of its
personnel but also in the way its strategic direction is monitored.[36]
19.37
The review made three critical recommendations:
- the regional character of RAMSI be strengthened, giving PIF a
more prominent and structured role in the mission's oversight and governance;
- a Ministerial Standing Committee be established to provide
strategic oversight of RAMSI and to report annually; and
- the PIF Secretary General endorse the position of RAMSI Special
Coordinator (now nominated by Australia in consultation with Solomon Islands).[37]
19.38
The RAMSI experience highlights the important role PIF can provide in
regional security. It also points to the importance of having good procedures
and mechanisms in place to ensure that regional responses to crises are not
only endorsed at a regional level, but continue to be implemented and monitored
on a regional basis as they progress.
19.39
It is clearly in Australia's national interest that Pacific island
states are politically stable, are supported by good governance programs and
that their citizens have the opportunity to enjoy satisfactory standards of
living. The PIF is the ideal forum through which Australia can assist the
region build an effective peacekeeping, peacebuilding capacity. The committee
notes that the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, announced in March 2008 that Australia
was seeking to host the 2009 Pacific Islands Forum.[38]
Proposed Australia–Pacific Islands
Council
19.40
In several previous reports, the committee has commented on the role of
people-to-people, business-to-business and organisation-to-organisation links
in sustaining healthy, strong and mutually beneficial relationships with other
countries in the region.[39]
Such connections are essential to creating an environment in which Australia is
better able to elicit support from its neighbours for a regional peacekeeping
operation and sustain that commitment for the duration of the mission.
19.41
In its 2003 report on Australia's relations with Papua New Guinea and
the island states of the south-west Pacific, the committee recommended that the
government establish an Australia–Pacific Council. The purpose of the council
was to 'advance the interests of Australia and the countries of the Pacific
region by initiating and supporting activities designed to enhance awareness,
understanding and interaction between the peoples and institutions of the
region'.[40]
In its response to the committee's recommendation, the government recognised
the value of broadening and promoting Australia's relations with Pacific island
countries. It informed the committee that any future consideration of an
Australia–Pacific Council 'would need to examine both the feasibility and
potential benefits of such a council, including financial and other resource
requirements'.[41]
19.42
The committee notes that an independent taskforce has recently published
a special report on the future directions of Australia's Pacific islands policy.
Published through the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), the report recommends
the establishment of an Australia–Pacific Islands Council.[42]
19.43
The committee's 2007 report on Australia's public diplomacy noted that Australia
currently has nine bilateral foundations, councils and institutes (FCIs) that
work with a particular country or region of the world. Although they have their
own mission statements, in general, their overarching objective is to develop
and strengthen people-to-people links and to foster greater mutual
understanding.[43]
The committee acknowledges that such a council would help to develop people-to-people
contacts and important institutional and cultural linkages within the region.
19.44
The committee cannot see any significant obstacles to the establishment
of an Australia–Pacific Islands Council. Moreover, the benefits that would flow
from a council made up of Australians keen to promote people-to-people and
institutional links with these island nations are obvious. The committee
considers the proposal worthy of government consideration. It suggests that the
Australian Government consider establishing an Australia–Pacific Islands
Council to build and strengthen people-to-people and institutional links between
Australia and the island states of the Pacific.
Limits to regional capacity
19.45
While there are great benefits attached to having small regional
countries contribute to regional peacekeeping operations, Australia has to be
mindful that nations with small police forces and limited civil services do not
overcommit.
19.46
Associate Professor Wainwright argued that Australia must be very
careful that small countries do not have their domestic capabilities undermined
or 'gutted' to service regional operations:
...while I think it is important to build up regional resources
and to have regional dynamics and cooperation working well, we should be under
no illusion as to how much then we can seek to draw from our regional partners.
I do not think it is in their interests that we always take their best and
brightest for these regional endeavours. That said, sometimes it makes good
sense for some of the few police perhaps from some of the countries in the
region to be involved in these regional operations because then, like in the
labour mobility instance, they bring you skills and they develop new skills
which they can take home and use in their home. So that is a benefit as well.[44]
19.47
In recognition of the smaller capacity of Australia's near neighbours in
the Pacific, a sensible regional approach to peacekeeping would include working
to enhance the local capacity that exists within potential contributing
countries. Associate Professor Wainwright suggested that Australia could start
by 'developing public servant capability', including an institution of public
management. She further considered that this could be done through PIF, through
the education and perhaps exchange of regional public servants to Australia.[45]
19.48
Major General Ford commented that sometimes regional capacity may be
limited in which case UN support may be required:
A regional operation will often have to react fairly quickly to
a situation and then seek authority to continue that operation from the United
Nations under chapter VIII—and then possibly even be supported or replaced by a
United Nations organisation if they do not have the capacity to continue to
solve the problem.[46]
19.49
Major General Ford's comment illustrates the importance of maintaining
strong links between the UN and regional associations.
Committee view
19.50
In Chapter 16, the committee discussed how peacekeeping missions can
best establish legitimacy and credibility in host countries. It noted that Australia's
involvement in the missions in East Timor and Solomon Islands was at the
invitation of the governments of those countries. Even so, evidence suggested
that Australia's prominence in the region may, in the minds of some, create a
perception of Australian dominance in a peacekeeping operation and undermine
the credibility of the mission.
19.51
Thus the active engagement of other countries in the southwest Pacific in
regional peacekeeping activities would help to counter this perception. The committee
believes that it is important for the Australian Government to encourage
greater representation of PIF member states in regional peacekeeping
operations. It recognises, however, that these states have limited capacity.
Even so, there is scope for Australia to help build a regional peacekeeping
capacity by assisting individual states to increase their own capacity. The committee
has referred to a number of bilateral education and training programs that are
effectively helping to build this capacity.
19.52
The committee also believes that PIF could become a more effective
regional mechanism for initiating and overseeing peacekeeping operations. Australia
should continue to encourage the forum to take on greater regional
responsibility in this area. As noted earlier, Australia is seeking to host the
2009 Pacific Islands Forum.
19.53
The committee is of the view that this level of engagement and support
is an important first step toward recognising and promoting the important role
that the forum has in regional affairs. The committee believes that, with
continued strong support from Australia, PIF could become an effective regional
mechanism for overseeing peacekeeping operations.
International engagement programs and future regional capacity
Australian initiatives in the
region
19.54
The Department of Defence contributes to regional capacity building
through its Defence Cooperation Program (DCP). The DCP aims to contribute to
regional security by encouraging and assisting with the development of the
defence self-reliance of regional countries. It also aims to promote more
effective and efficient security services consistent with the principles of
good governance.[47]
Defence advised:
Defence Cooperation Program activities encompass assistance to
regional security forces in the areas of strategic planning, education and
training, command and control, infrastructure, counter-terrorism,
communications and logistic support. The program also supports the conduct of
combined exercises to improve the ability of regional countries to contribute
to regional security. Training programs involve service personnel training
together in Australia and overseas, thereby contributing to increased levels of
mutual understanding and cooperation.[48]
19.55
The ADF and the AFP collaborate on delivering the DCP. They establish
distinct roles for security sector agencies, with an emphasis on the use of
police capability for internal security.[49]
19.56
The DCP's capacity-building activities have included combined exercises
with a number of Australia's regional partners. For example, the ADF and the
Papua New Guinea Defence Force (PNGDF) have been involved in a host of
activities including: professional military education for PNGDF personnel,
joint infrastructure projects and the preparation of PNGDF personnel for
deployment to RAMSI.[50]
19.57
While the Department of Defence Annual Report 2005–2006 devotes
numerous pages to the DCP, citing its activities in the South Pacific and South-East
Asia, the Annual Report 2006–2007 offers no such examples for this $80 million
(approx.) program.[51]
19.58
As noted in the previous chapter, another Defence initiative is the
training programs provided through the Asia Pacific Centre for Military Law
(APCML), University of Melbourne. Established in 2001, the centre runs a number
of training programs in subject areas such as peace operations and
international law, military operations law, military operations for commanders
and civil–military cooperation in military operations.[52]
Course participation in Australia is normally split evenly between ADF members
and regional military officers from South-East Asia and the South Pacific.
Defence anticipates expanding the number and type of courses available. The
centre promotes respect for the rule of law in peacekeeping and in military affairs
generally in both the ADF and the Asia–Pacific region.[53]
19.59
APCML also runs courses within the region. For example, it has conducted
a military ethics program for the Thai military which focused on legal issues
in military decision making. Members of other regional military organisations
also attended.[54]
19.60
In addition, APCML offers courses that appeal to non-military audiences
and engage presenters from non-military backgrounds. The centre's CIMIC courses
engage representatives from the NGOs, humanitarian sector and international
organisations.[55]
19.61
The committee notes that recently Australia has also sought to enhance
regional capacity in peacekeeping and peacebuilding through bilateral training
initiatives. In March 2007, then Prime Minister John Howard and Prime Minister Shinzo
Abe signed a Joint Declaration on Security Cooperation which will see Japanese
police train in Australia for peacekeeping operations.[56]
UN programs in the region
19.62
The committee received evidence suggesting that Australia could do more
to support UN training objectives in the region.[57]
Major General Ford outlined that the UN offers a number of training modules
for senior mission leaders. He also noted that no Australian had participated
in any of those courses and argued that potential future leaders should be
required to attend. He considered that there would be great value in
encouraging the UN to host one of the Senior Mission Leadership courses in the
Asia–Pacific region, facilitated by Australia:
It does not necessarily have to be here but perhaps we could
assist another country in hosting the course, much the same as we did with the
doctrine seminar that was run in Singapore earlier this year. I believe that we
need to get involved in helping the UN run these and other activities in the
region. That gives us a way of getting into those things. As a relatively rich
country I think we have a responsibility to do that.[58]
19.63
DFAT reported that three UN Senior Mission Leadership courses are
planned for 2008 in India, Australia and Brazil.[59]
Defence reported that it had not been approached to host a UN Senior Mission
Leadership course, but would discuss the feasibility of doing so through its UN
post in New York. Defence also commented that 'Given the multi-agency nature of
the course, the proposal would have to be examined in a whole-of-government
context'.[60]
19.64
The committee supports endeavours to host the course in Australia, or
elsewhere in the region, but suggests that DFAT ensure all relevant
stakeholders, including Defence, are aware of such plans. The committee also
encourages relevant agencies to pursue opportunities to place senior staff on
the course.
Global Peace Operations Initiative
19.65
Australian agencies participate in the United States Government Global
Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI), a program designed to address major gaps in
international support for peace operations.[61]
The GPOI program, scheduled to conclude in 2010, aims to build and maintain
capability, capacity, and effectiveness of peacekeeping operations. It aims to
achieve this through enhancing the ability of countries and regional and
sub-regional organisations to train, prepare for, plan, manage, conduct, and
learn from peace operations.[62]
DFAT commented:
Programmes such as the US's GPOI provide an opportunity for
enhancing our efforts to build the capacity of regional countries to respond to
conflict, disaster and instability though training and education. The capacity
of regional nations to undertake or contribute to peacekeeping is a critical
component of security in the Asia-Pacific region, and globally. In this context
Australia is promoting within the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) the
establishment of the peace operations network of expertise and the development
of ARF Civil Military Cooperation (CIMIC) Standard Operating Procedures.[63]
19.66
DFAT continued:
To ensure that efforts by the UN and regional organisations are
complementary, coordination between these bodies needs to be improved and this
can be promoted through GPOI-supported exercise and engagement activities. Australia
actively supports the objective of increasing the global capacity for peace
operations and the Department of Defence has committed an officer to work in
the US State Department to help enhance the effectiveness of GPOI in our
region.[64]
Committee view
19.67
The committee notes that the current Australian Government has sought to
strengthen Australia's engagement with the UN and has identified its membership
of the UN as one of the 'three pillars' of its foreign policy. It also
recognises the efforts that Australian government agencies have made to engage
with existing international initiatives to improve regional peacekeeping
capacity. The committee expects that agencies will continue their efforts in
developing regional cooperation for peacekeeping operations through bilateral
cooperation and regional fora such as the ARF. The committee believes that
Australian efforts to engage with global and regional organisations would be
facilitated by the establishment of a national peacekeeping institute.
19.68
As the most populous and largest economy in the southwest Pacific, Australia
shoulders a significant responsibility for peacekeeping operations in the region.
Given Australia's experience and resources, the committee believes that Australia
must move beyond existing bilateral initiatives to develop the region's
multilateral peacekeeping capacity. While the idea of a national peacekeeping
institute has been discussed in the context of training Australians for
peacekeeping, the committee also sees an important role for this proposed
institute in helping to build regional capacity. It could do so by opening up
courses or exercises to overseas participants. This matter is further discussed
in Chapter 25.
Part V
Safety and welfare of Australian personnel
In this part of the report, the committee looks at the
consideration given to the health and safety of Australian personnel deployed
on a peacekeeping operation, including the care and services available to
injured personnel. The committee's intention is to determine whether there are
lessons to be learnt from current practices and, if so, how they could be
improved. There are four chapters in this part of the report covering:
- measures taken during service to promote the health and safety of
Australian peacekeepers;
- post-deployment integration and health programs, including a
major section on mental health;
- the legislative framework governing the rehabilitation of, and
compensation for, those injured or disabled while serving in a peacekeeping
operation; and
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page