From The Student Room
TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > Politics > Peacekeeping and Interventionism
Peacekeeping / Interventionism
What forms has peacekeeping taken in recent years?
- Peacekeeping, as defined by the United Nations (UN), is a way to help countries torn by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace. UN peacekeepers—soldiers and military officers, civilian police officers and civilian personnel from many countries—monitor and observe peace processes that emerge in post-conflict situations and assist ex-combatants in implementing the peace agreements they have signed. Such assistance comes in many forms, including confidence-building measures, power-sharing arrangements, electoral support, strengthening the rule of law, and economic and social development.
- In 1990 3 times as many nations signed peacekeeping agreements than in the previous 3 decades reflecting as Deen reports “ a more than 30 percent decline in the overall number and intensity of armed conflicts worldwide from 1992 to 1997”
- At the end of the 1980s the UN “reinvented humanitarian intervention. The Council’s concerns were extended to ‘human security’: it would rescue people from the savagery of civil and ethnic conflict” (The Economist)
- “Classical peacekeeping – the interposition of ceasefire observer forces between belligerents – still has a role. But it is a relatively small one. The bigger reality is peacekeeping in weak states” (The World Today) *Peacekeeping in weak or disintegrating states e.g. Somalia, Yugoslavia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Sierra Leone and the Côte d’Ivoire.
- Recently a lot of regional peacekeeping has been taking place. The problem with this approach is that few regions, apart from Europe, have either the men or the money to mount such an operation. Basically that means that Africa, Nigeria and South Africa do have the ability and the will to project some stabilising force beyond their borders but it is limited.
- In recent years there has been an increasing demand for UN involvement in peacekeeping and also the nature and demands of peacekeeping have become increasingly more complex
- UN peacekeeping missions have faced a number of problems, in places like Somalia, and many have questioned whether the UN is up to the task.
- Since the Brahimi report in 2000 the UN has attempted to reform and improve its approach to peacekeeping though clearly there is scope for argument as to how far this has been successful and what else need to be done
- There are 4 main problems when it comes to peacekeeping:
- Consent of all parties needed (sometimes waived)
- Operational mandates are unrealistic and really give permission for use of force
- Support of member states via provision of men and supplies is needed
- The organisation capacity of the UN is limited
- The shortcomings of post-war Iraq have underscored the need not only for peacekeeping but also for peace-building
- According to Victoria Holt “peacekeeping has been changing especially in the last 2 years. It is growing in size, it is becoming more complex, more leaning forward and it is present in rougher neighbourhoods”
- In addition to maintaining peace and security, peacekeepers are increasingly charged with assisting in political processes, reforming justice systems, training law-enforcement and security forces and disarming former combatants.
- In recent years there has been a more active ‘interventionist’ approach to reducing international conflict and protecting international human rights even at the expense of national sovereignty
When is it legitimate to intervene in conflicts?
- In 1999 the General Assembly resolved that the UN should only intervene when invited to do so by the government in power
- Blair’s 5 criteria which he set out in his Chicago speech are:
- Are we sure of the case?
- Have we exhausted all diplomatic options?
- Can military options be sensibly and prudently undertaken?
- Are we prepared for the long haul?
- Is national interest involved?
- By authorisation of the Security Council – Chapter IIV of the UN Charter – “action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of peace and acts of aggression” – can be extended to human rights violations and breaches of rules on WMD etc
- The Security Council authorised or approved regime change on two occasions – Sierra Leone and Haiti. *This is an indication that some limitations on state sovereignty may be accepted even when others are not
Customary International Law – by invitation of a sovereign government requiring help with rebellions etc
International law although largely seen as non-interventionist in approach does sometimes reinforce the case for the use of force. It imposes on individual governments a range of obligations in fields as various as arms control, human rights and conservation of fish stocks. Obligations form a key part of a liberal international order, but they lead inevitably to situations where, when norms are plainly violated, pressure arises to use force. An example of this is humanitarian intervention
- Self defence – should be reported to the security council under article 51 of the UN Charter and should be necessary and proportional to the threat
- Humanitarian Intervention not sanctioned by the Security Council may not be considered legal but is it legit. i.e. no one would have complained if successful intervention had occurred in Rwanda.
How dependant is international peacekeeping and intervention on US involvement?
- In 2005 the UN General Assembly passed a $3.2 billion peacekeeping budget for 2006, which is expected to reach $5 billion because of additional costs of maintaining existing missions. America covers 27% of the peacekeeping budget, making it the largest contributing nation in terms of money. However America often falls behind on paying its dues
- In 2005 the 16 countries that contributed the most peacekeepers were all developing nations. America provided only 375 peacekeepers to UN operations, all of them civilian police officers. They do nothing to help the shortage of well-trained troops
- The involvement of the USA with its massive military and economic muscle has often appeared vital to effective intervention to ensure peace and protect persecuted ethnic groups
- However the USA is still selective in its approach to international peacekeeping, and at times significant operations have taken place without direct US involvement
- Examples of US involvement in interventions and significance:
- Former Yugoslavia:
- After initial reluctance Clinton was persuaded to get behind military intervention in the Bosnian conflict and the US played an important part in bringing about an end to the inter-ethnic slaughter
- More recently the US played a key role in taking action against the Serbs in Kosovo
- In both cases it could be argued that the US was vital in helping restore peace to the heart of Europe not least because the Europeans themselves were unable to deal effectively with these problems without them
- Afghanistan and Iraq:
- Post 9/11 the US has become all the more determined to take an interventionist approach in order to pursue the ‘war on terror’ and bring order and stability to stated where terrorism has been or might be able to flourish and provide a threat to US vital interests and security
- This has led to controversial US led interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq where George W. Bush Jnr is now heavily involved in the very post-conflict ‘relation-building’ he was so sceptical of at the outset of his presidency
- Interventions without the USA:
- Africa:
- Africa is a continent beset by conflict. Since its brief but painful experience in Somalia the US had become reluctant to intervene in African conflicts and this helps to explain why so littler was done to prevent the genocide in Rwanda
- However since then there has been significant international intervention in some of the African conflicts
- Most on the actual forces involved have come from African nations sometimes with the help of former colonial powers, Britain and France.
- In Sierra Leone after an uneasy start there has arguably been very effective UN backed intervention with British forces playing a crucial role
- Other forces have been set up to help create peace in Liberia and the Congo
- US forces were briefly involved in the Liberian intervention but otherwise action has been taken without the participation of US forces and has at least been partially successful
- East Timor:
- Although the international community was slow to act against Indonesia in East Timor partly through US influence, it did eventually intervene to help create and ease the new nation into being.
- Australia rather than the USA led the military intervention and in the new ‘nation building’ process direct US involvement has been minimal
- In the case of UN supported interventions in world conflicts obviously these cannot take place without US support given the workings of the Security Council
- It would seem that only with the direct involvement of the US military forces could a degree of peace and stability be brought about in the former Yugoslavia, much to the embarrassment of many eastern European states
- It is also cleat that the more recent unilateralist tendency in US foreign policy has led to its controversial interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
- Admittedly it has had allies but the actions wouldn’t have taken place without US leadership
- However the examples of Sierra Leone, the Congo and East Timor would seem to indicate that provided *US diplomatic and/or economic support can be obtained, effective intervention can take place to help secure peace and promote humanitarian principles without the direct involvement of US forces
- Yet even this does need some sort of US support, and so it seems that international peacekeeping and intervention is dependant on the US, even if in some case it is only to a small extent
Comments
These notes are aimed at people studying for Edexcel A Level Politics, module 5 and 6, route D, but will be suitable for other people too.
Originally submitted by joker13na on TSR Forums.
