The Cloak and the Blue Beret: Limitations on Intelligence in UN Peacekeeping

Abstract

In 1960 it was suggested that the word ``intelligence’’ should be banned from the lexicon of the United Nations. . Indeed, the UN continues to shy away from of¢cial use of the term because of its association with illegal or undercover activities, such as spying, theft, and distortion, with which the UN would not (and should not) be involved. Nevertheless, intelligence, in its pure sense of processed information, both open and secret, relating to security, is an essential part of UN peacekeeping, and is recognized as such by UN staff, both civilian and military. Peacekeeping operations (PKOs) have sometimes included ``information units’’ or ``Military Information Branches’’ (MIBs) in their structures. Thus, the UN has of¢cially sidestepped the term ``intelligence,’’ though some staff members of these units unof¢cially called themselves intelligence of¢cers, and many have been drawn from the ranks of various professional military and police intelligence organizations. Many failures in the history of UN ¢eld operations might have been avoided had the UN taken a more forthright approach to intelligence and possessed a stronger mandate to gather information and improve its information-gathering systems. The list includes outbreaks from the distant past, such as the Korean War of 1950 (witnessed but not foreseen by the UN Commission on Korea), and more recent ones, such as the incursion of SWAPO guerrillas into Namibia (1989), the Iraqi attack on