The (f)utility of peacekeeping

As I commented about a month ago, the wealth transfers from the UN to those nations that pony up peacekeepers can have any number of deleterious effects.  It always seemed odd to me that Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal donate so many peacekeepers, but it all has to do with money.  Now, as The Economist reports in this week's edition, payments to the island nation of Fiji for its support of UN peacekeeping operations may have given the military there the financial wherewithal to launch a coup in December 2006:

Without peacekeeping missions overseas, it is unlikely that Fiji's army would ever have become strong enough to seize power. When the British left in 1970, there were only around 200 serving military personnel. UN peacekeeping operations in Lebanon and Sinai generated a tenfold increase by 1986. The next year, Fiji witnessed its first military coup. Some 20,000-25,000 Fijians have been deployed on UN missions since independence—a lot for a country of fewer than 1m.

There's a lot to be written on this topic.  These transfers are essentially a form of disguised military aid by moneyed nations to poorer, less-than-democratic countries.  Take Bangladesh, which has seen the military recently intervene in that nation's domestic politics.  Or Pakistan, where the military very nearly runs the country.  Fiji, in this company, is small fry.