From INTERFET To UNTAET

1
From INTERFET To UNTAET

• Planning For UN PKO
• New Zealands Commitment To Timor Lesté
• A Case Study

2
Purpose

• Describe NZs planning for the intervention in
  Timor Lesté from 1999 2003
• Examine the similarities in planning for
  combined, coalition operations and UN PKO
• Highlight the respective responsibilities of the
  UN and TCN in respect of commitment to UN PKO
• Highlight the planning considerations for
  Discussion Topic 1

3
INTERFET (Sept 1999 Feb 2000)

• A UN sanctioned Chapter 7 Intervention, led by
  Australia a coalition
• NZ initial commitment - a joint task force of
  around 1500 personnel - (SF, battalion group,
  APC troop, 6 x UH-1H Iroquois, 2 x C-130, two
  frigates, supply ship (15 of NZDF)
• NZ ongoing commitment - a battalion group of
  around 700, APC troop, 6 UH1H Iroquois,
• NZ AO was assigned Canadian Coy, Nepalese
  Platoon, Irish Platoon, Fijian Coy under OPCON

4
INTERFET (Sept 1999 Feb 2000)

• INTERFET Log planning was based on UN model and
  PKO experience
• Initial planning was assumption based (no recon)
• NZ knew it had to self deploy and be self
  sufficient for at least 60 days. Elected for 90
  days
• Planned for ops in and around DILI Allocated AO
  was Suai

5
NZBATT AREA OF OPERATIONS INTERFET AND UNTAET
Roads Closed 5 Months/Year 12 Hr Drive - 100 km
West Timor
No Seaport Restricted Airport Harsh
Environment No Infrastructure
NZ Battalion Area of Operations
6
(No Transcript)
7
This is what we found on arrival in SUAI. Our
experience tells us that it is pretty typical of
a UN intervention environment
8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
(No Transcript)
18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21
(No Transcript)
22
(No Transcript)
23
(No Transcript)
24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26


27
INTERFET Characteristics

• NZ Forces OPCON to Australian Force Comd- NZ
  retained OPCOM
• NZ had Implementing Arrangement with Australia
  for common item support
• NZ planned to support Bn Gp for 90 days ended
  up supporting a multinational Bde Gp (-) for 180
  days
• Lines Of Communication NZ to Timor Lesté 6500km
  Logistics Over the Shore only way to resupply

28
(No Transcript)
29
(No Transcript)
30
(No Transcript)
31
INTERFET Characteristics

• No HNS available initially and no contractor
  support until May 00
• NZ established National Support Element in Darwin
  to orchestrate logistic support
• Log support was mostly a national responsibility
• INTERFET always intended to pass to UN but
  mandate was unclear (Chapt 6 or Chapt 7)
• UN intimated a Feb 00 handover about Dec 99

32
UNTAET

• UN mandated Chapt 7 operation
• Planning was for transition ops (most TCN were
  already in theatre)
• Planning was for TCN to remain self sufficient
  for 60 days until UN support network had been
  established
• UN accepted extant forces and structures and
  accepted allocated AOs

33
UNTAET

• NZ sent negotiation party to DPKO early (Jan 00)
• Negotiation team empowered to commit NZ national
  resources
• Team Terms Of Reference
• Determine how support was to be provided
• Determine what UN would reimburse NZ for and how
• Strike NZ COE list

34
UNTAET

• UN/NZ Negotiation
• Defined the UN desired effect (Self contained Bn
  Gp with Level 2 Med Facility)
• Defined structures (troop numbers)
• Defined equipment lists (UN provided/NZ provided)
  COE list
• Agreed support to be provided to other TCN in NZ
  AO
• Confirmed leasing arrangements (dry lease in NZs
  case)

35
UNTAET

• UN/NZ Negotiation
• Negotiated LOA for painting of remaining UH-1H
  Iroquois helicopters (INTERFET NZ camouflage
  UN white)
• Negotiated start-up serviceability rates (NZ
  equipment had been in theatre for five months and
  support was very difficult)
• Confirmed provision of Classes 1 (Food) and 3
  (POL)
• Confirmed ROE

36
UNTAET Planning Issues

• NZ had deployed specific equipment to theatre to
  support itself in an austere, isolated AO.
• Quads, and Swing Thru Container Handling System
  were sticking points in negotiation
• UN COE list does not contain all specialist
  military equipment both parties must be
  flexible
• What constitutes a medical capability is a real
  issue (Level 1 versus Level 2)

37
(No Transcript)
38
UNTAET Planning Issues

• NZ support to other TCN in AO was contentious and
  time consuming. Ended up a three-way MOU/LOA
  negotiation
• During negotiation UN had not conducted recon
  again both parties must be flexible and TCN in
  theatre must be prepared to share intelligence
• Come as you are issues

39
UNTAET Planning Issues

• Deployment/Redeployment are issues
• National standards versus commercial reality
• NZ used national charter for deployment (B747-C
  and two commercial vessels) Agreement to
  reverse this for redeployment
• Agree POE/POD up front affects reimbursement
• Equipment availability expectations on transition
  NZ equipment was tired!

40
UNTAET The Practicalities

• NZ staff were not trained in the verification
  process
• Verification very contentious initially because
  UN had not told in-country verifiers of NZ
  MOU/LOA (e.g. UN in country verifiers were not
  aware of the agreement re painting of UH-1H)
• Refrigeration in humid climates
• UN requests 60 days configure for 90 days

41
General Traps For Players

• Troop Rotation policy
• NZ ground forces six months. NZ aircrew
  three months (This was a sustainability issue
  that was tied to aircraft painting but it did
  cause friction)
• Ammunition
• Who pays for training ammunition?
• Medical Controversy over what constitutes L1
  and L2 difference in national standards
• Whole blood and blood products (national policy)

42
General Traps For Players

• What constitutes serviceable equipment
  national standards
• Who rectifies non-availability?
• Us versus Them
• TCN perceive that verification is to minimise
  payment...TCN think it is to rip them off
• Bureaucracy
• Personalities

43
General Traps For Players

• Understanding that TCN reimbursement ceases when
  TCN no longer mission committed.
• Troop allowance does not go to the troops in
  the first instance
• Understand that TCN dont deploy with spare
  capacity and neither does the UN
• Contractor performance You Get What you Pay for

44
General Traps For Players

• Backup arrangements if the shooting starts will
  contracted staff remain? UNOSOM example
• Understanding LOGCAP
• Huge utility but at a cost
• Start-up time typically- 6 8 weeks
• Planning to the endstate national
  reconstitution

45
Lessons For Us All

• Preplanning
• Engage MPS and DPKO early, face-to-face with a
  senior decision maker
• Strike the COE List
• Agree the sustainment plan
• Agree Ts Cs and MOU/LOA
• Draft MOU
• ESTABLISH PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS!!!
• Dont assume the problem away (HNS)

46
Lessons For Us All

• Plan to end-state has to be national
  reconstitution
• Information flow back to national planners
• Familiarity with TCN Handbook. If in doubt read
  the instructions!
• Identify and empower a single national Point Of
  Contact
• Do all this right and this is what you get....

47
(No Transcript)
48
Questions And Discussion