Contrast United Nations: Peacekeeping in the post Cold War οrder with its Cold War role.
Peacekeeping: the deployment of a United Nations presence in the field with the consent of all the parties concerned, normally involving UN military and/or police personnel and frequently civilians as well.
Agenda for Peace.
Introduction:
The United Nations was created on 24th of October 1945 by 51 countries, while in 2006 is consisted of 191 Member States (UN database), “nearly every state in the world” (Baylis &Smith, 2005, p.406). According to the Charter of the United Nations, which was signed at San Francisco on 26th of June 1945 the United Nations had four main purposes (Paragraph 1):
to maintain international peace and security,
to develop friendly relations among the Nations,
to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting the respect for human rights,
and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of Nations.
Though, it also came to be clear that one of the significant functions that the UN would be referred to act upon would be to “assist in the orderly development of independence and freedom from external control in areas where peoples had been subjected to some form of foreign rule and where nationalism had become a strong and vital force” (Goodrich & Simons, 1974, p.52). As former secretary Stettinius stated: “the Organization also has the purpose and its empowered to take positive and affirmative action in bringing about the conditions essential for peace throughout the world and for its enjoyment” (Goodrich & Simons, 1975, p.13). Peacekeeping has been characterized by Roberts and Kingsbury (1993, p.184) as “international help which is sometimes sent to an immediate problem area when disputing states wish, at least for the time being, to live in peace”.
The establishment of the United Nations though, was not the first time that different Nations around the world tried to cooperate; the League of Nations was the first effort and the first World War was the first cause. The League of Nations “intended to make future wars impossible, but a major problem was the League’s lack of effective power” (Baylis & Smith, 2005, p.407). According to Goodrich and Simons if a Member turned to war then the League of Nations, “immediately subjected all trade or financial relations, the prohibitions of all intercourse between their nationals and the nationals of the covenant-breaking state and the nationals of any-other state, whether a Member of the League or no”(1975, p. 424). Although O’Neil and Rees (2005, p.192) characteristically wrote that “Hitler’s decision in March 1936 to reoccupy the Rhineland, a designated demilitarized zone according to the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, effectively pulled the plug on the League’s life support system”. The League as soon as the Second World War started had already “failed to address a number of acts of aggression” (Baylis & Smith, 2005, p.407). It seems that economic restrictions were not enough for the League of Nations to be effective and farther military measures should be taken when it was required.
The power of Veto:
The Article 27 of the UN Charter gave to the five Permanent Members of the United Nations the Power to Veto; according to the Charter, if a Permanent Member did not vote a resolution, then the resolution could not be adopted. As Baylis and Smith mentioned “with the ideological polarity of the Cold War, the UN procedures for collective security were still-born” (2005, p.193). The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990 was the first time that a joint security system was put into action. According to Goodrich and Simons it was the “ever-present threat of Soviet Veto in the Council” that “largely removed any possibility of effective United Nations action through that organ” (1975, p.51). Malone (2004) cited by Baylis and Smith (2005, p.411) notices that “from 1945 to 1990, 193 substantive Vetoes were invoked in the Security Council” and according to the UN list only 15 Vetoes from 1990 to 2003. It is obvious that the UN, during the Cold War, had to overcome the controversial interests of United States and Soviet Union since the “power to Veto could be used whenever the major interests of the great powers were threatened” (Baylis & Smith, 2005, p.411).
Peacekeeping
The year 2006 United Nations completed 58 years of peacekeeping operations. Though, since 1948 significant changes have occurred and the present peacekeeping operations do not remind any of the peacekeeping operations of the past. Cold War has a pivotal role in this change.
Cold War:
The United Nations during the Cold War undertook only seventeen peacekeeping operations, five of which still run (UN database). O’Neill and Rees (2005, p.24) wrote that during the Cold War the permanent members of United Nations did not play significant role in Peacekeeping. The countries that involved in these operations were: Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, Ghana, India, Ireland, Italy, Nepal, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Senegal, Sweden and Netherlands (UN database). As Twitchett (1971, p.73) notices, “UN’s strength lay in the middle-range powers who provided the contingents and not in the two super powers”; though “if a situation required military peace-keeping in one form or another were to arise in Africa, Asia or Americas, it is by no means clear that there would be either basic agreement between the super powers or willingness by the parties to accept their assertion of responsibility” (Twitchett, 1971, p.74). The peacekeeping operations during the Cold War consisted of units with various size and “only UNEF I and II, ONUC, UNFICYP and UNIFIL exceeded three thousand personnel” (O’Neill & Rees, 2005, p.24). In Congo (ONUC) the operation engaged some 15.000-20.000 personnel from 34 states and was the largest during this period.
Peacekeeping operations like “preventive diplomacy, required some cooperation or at least acquiescence from governments” (Baehr & Gordenker, 1999, p.92) of all the involved parts. In practice, “a peacekeeping operation requires the co-operation of the authorities of the state in whose territory it operates and consent is therefore a normal prerequisite”(Twitchett, 1971, p.77). Furthermore, former Secretary - General Hammarskjöld (Twitchett, 1971, p.78) was clear and categorical about the need of the UN to keep distance and not get involved in any internal struggle; although this was really difficult in operations like Congo. He had also decided that operations should not exercise any form of military strength; he “argued that the real strength of a peacekeeping operation lay not in its capacity to use force, but precisely in its not using force” (O’Neill & Rees, 2005, p.34).
The classical peacekeeping operation entails the placement of a UN force between the disputed parties after a ceasefire; the force can use its weapons only for self-defense and is established with the consent of the host state (Baylis & Smith, 2005, p. 412); though 1973 onwards, self-defense “was deemed to include situations in which peace-keepers were being prevented from fulfilling their mandate“(O’Neill & Rees, 2005, p.34). O’Neill and Rees characteristically wrote that “unlike conventional military operations, there were no template to apply and therefore no matching of resources to task” (O’Neill & Rees, 2005, p.25); there were times they didn’t’t have the freedom to move and much to say about their placement. This kind of operation was first used in November 1956 when a UN force was send to Egypt to help the exit of British and French forces from the Suez Canal zone , and then to settle between Egyptian and Israeli forces (Baehr & Gordenker, 1999, p. 72). The same kind of mission was used in Cyprus (UNFICYP) in 1964 and in the Golan Heights (UNDOF) in 1974 (UN database).
The technique of peacekeeping during the Cold War was linked to the divided UN Security Council; as Twitchett (1971, p.30) pointed, the role of the units during the operations rather than “keeping” the peace was limited to observing it. A general officer of the United Nations characteristically said that “peacekeeping is to war-making what acting is to ballet - the environment is similar but the techniques are very different” (Fabian, 1971, p.28). The peacekeeping operation during the Cold War rather than being well organized and well resourced operations were little more than roughly organized reactions to several crises, that “often seemed to lack clear objectives, leadership and guidance (O‘Neill and Rees, 2005, p.24). According to the basic principle of the UN operations of non-intervention and the self-defense, the obvious inference is that the UN had not real power to disarm contrary to the its power after the Cold-War; the lack of power to disarm as Twitchett (1971, p.820) mentioned proved to be “disastrous to the achievement of the mandate of the Force. Even though O’Neill and Rees (2005, p.32) noticed that “the compromise activity introduced by the UN was preferable to total inaction”. It was really confusing that on the one hand UN employed military forces and sends them “into the fire” and on the other did not give them the appropriate means to serve their mandate. Though, it was reasonably unthinkable that the UN soldiers would open fire during interventions, like in Egypt and Cyprus, against the Egyptians or the Cypriots (Twitchett, 1971, p.29).
The UN peacekeeping operations did not start demanding attention until the mid-1950’s; it was then that the United Nations realized that the creation of an efficient system of preparedness for the operations would be truly effective (Fabian,1971, p.15). Roberts and Kingsbury (1993, p.193) wrote that “in the period up to 1966 more peacekeeping bodies were set up in Asia than anywhere else” while decolonization was taking place. On the other hand they (Roberts & Kingsbury, 1993, p.28) mentioned that the most effective interferences were those that were dealing with short term operations like UNOGIL, UNEF I and DOMEREP in contrast with UNTSO, UNMOGIP and UNFICYP that dealing with local disputes and ONUC which get over UN’s powers. The major reason for this is that a peacekeeping operation can be really effective when the parties involved want external help, otherwise it is not likely to success.
An operation that needs to be separated form the general “peacekeeping” effort of the United Nations during the Cold War is the intervention in Korea in 1950. The operation that lasted until 1953 was “peace enforcement not peacekeeping” (Roberts & Kingsbury, 1993, p.193). On this kind of operations, like in Gulf War in the post-Cold War period, the “Security Council agreed to a mandate for an agent to act on its behalf” (Baylis & Smith, 2005, p.412). Furthermore, Diehl (1996) cited by O’Neill and Rees (2005, p.35) defined peace-enforcement as “a large scale military operation designed to defend the victims of international aggression and restore peace and security by the threat of the aggressor’s forces”, and this is the reason that distinguish from peace-keeping. As Fergus and Callan wrote (2002, p.36), “enforcement meant an end to strict impartiality and the United Nations became a key player in the conflict”.
The United Nations action during the Cold War was overshadowed by the conflict between the two super powers and as O’Neill and Rees (2005, p.25) characteristically wrote the “UN peacekeeping became something of a curiosity of interest only to those directly involved and a number of academics”. Although, the period between 1956 and 1974 was described from under Secretary Marrack Goulding as the “Golden age” of United Nations for UN peacekeeping operations (O‘Neil & Rees, 2005, p.25); however Roberts (1994) cited by O’Neill and Rees (2005, p.30) will argue that the first four decades of United Nations might be impressive but “it would be wrong” to characterize it as “a golden age”. Yet even more Twitchett (1971, p. 81) will characterize the peacekeeping operations “unsatisfactory and inexistent” and that new initiatives should be taken. The financial problems remained serious at the end of 1970’s and the implacability of the Soviet Union and China for certain issues hold back the progress of the UN for certain years.
Furthermore, the image of the United Nations during the Cold War did not forebode the transformation that was going to take place as soon as the Cold War would end. After 1991 as it will be seen in the next chapter United Nations will multiply its actions and presence in all conflict areas.
Post-Cold War period:
In contrast to the earlier period, in the post-Cold War era the United Nations authorized 42 operations of which 33 have been completed (O‘Neill & Rees, 2005, p.30); 13 of them are consisted of civilian police and not army forces, while five Cold War operations still exist (UN database). Furthermore, apart of the auxesis of the number of operations, the geographic focus “shifted from Middle East to Africa and Europe, as well as to a lesser extent Central America and Asia (O‘Neill & Rees, 2005, pp. 30-31). The United Nations peacekeeping operations in the Post-Cold War period focused in “resisting aggression between states, in attempting resolution in disputed between states (civil wars) and by focusing on conditions within states, including economic, social and political conditions” (Baylis & Smith, 2005, p.414) like democratization. The major change in this period is that the UN has to deal with intrastate conflict and this would make intervention more difficult. Sellers (1996, p.237) characteristically wrote that “the two superpowers determined to bring an end to some embarrassing and costly confrontations” as soon as the Cold War ended; some of the internal conflicts were UN tried to help took place in Yugoslavia, Somalia, Rwanda and Afghanistan (UN database). After 1991 United Nations left back the “traditional form of peacekeeping” and “new” Post-Cold War operations came about (O‘Neill & Rees, 2005, p. 34). Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali characterized those operations “peacekeeping in the midst of war” and he added that this occurred in “an emotional environment in which effective decision-making could be far more difficult” (Sellers, 1996, p.258). There were three types of internal conflicts that forced the Security council to act: “i) cruel and destructive civil wars that were left over from the period of the Cold War, ii) internal conflicts with extensive humanitarian problems and violations of basic human rights, and iii) conflicts that threatened the stability and security of surrounding regions” (Sellers, 1996, p.240).
The post-Cold War period and the intervention in intrastate conflicts brought one significant change in the operations; no official government could ask the United Nations help because several times non governmental groups controlled the conflict areas. Most of the times, “genuine and reliable consent by the parties could not be expected” (Sellers, 1996, p.253). In most of these operations “humanitarian considerations” played vital role in the initiative for action; as Sellers (1996, p.241) noticed, “humanitarian assistance was supposed to be the paramount and possibly the sole function” of complex operations like Bosnia - Herzegovina and Somalia. The Security Council the 5th of April 1991 under the Resolution 688, made it clear that “gross violations of human rights threatened the international security” (Sellers, 1996, p. 241).
In Kosovo the NATO intervention aimed to demonstrate that they were acting according to the UN Charter and the Resolutions of the Security Council (Baylis & Smith, 2005, p.422). Humanitarian assistance and protection of populations was the main objective of the operation; though the threat to regional stability was equally important because a War was in progress in the heart of Europe. UNPROFOR aimed to protect the relief convoys over the road, though according to Baehr and Gordenk (1999, p.85) they disposed neither the authority nor the means to halt armed engagements. United Nations and Western democracies tried to “use techniques that were successful during the Cold War; they tried to negotiate and put an end to the conflict” (Payne, February 2001). When negotiations failed and atrocious human rights abuses occurred the UN and the Western democracies forced to take action, “they slowly and tortuously stumbled their way to a peace process backed by the utilization of force to stop the fighting” (Payne, February 2001). Furthermore, in 1993 the “ethnic cleansing” that was taking place in the former Yugoslavia forced the Security Council to pass further Resolutions in an effort to end the conflicts in Bosnia (Roberts & Kingsbury, 1993, pp. 225-228); an “embargo” occurred against the disputed parts. Thought 167 fatalities of the UNPROFOR (UN database) during the internal conflicts in former Yugoslavia shows that safe areas and cease fire was not enough to ensure safety not even for UN soldiers.
Peacekeeping in the post-Cold War era was not the only action that UN undertook. The Gulf War started with the “invasion and annexation” of Kuwait by Iraq and an enforcement operation took place (Roberts & Kingsbury, 1993, p.184). This operation brought all five permanent members of the Security Council, for the first time in UN operations, in agreement to provide military observers in the Mission (UNIKOM) (UN database); the initiative for this operation though belongs to the United States. United Nations Security Council Resolution 678, for the first time since the Korean War, authorized the use of force to remove Iraq from Kuwait. The necessity for the UN Security Council to “authorize the US to lead the coalition forces demonstrated the structural weaknesses in the UN system”(Payne, February 2001). The UN is unable to “field a large, well-trained, and equipped force to act on its behalf unless the strategic interests of the US or other wealthy western nations are directly involved” (Payne, February 2001). Additionally, the US as well as other nations will not accept to place its troops under UN command and control. The common result is that “two chains of command exist, sometimes resulting in conflicting guidance to the troops in the field” (Payne, February 2001). To become effective in the field of an operation United Nations must determine its power to make use of quality forces from Member States.
One of the major issues that concerned the United Nations was, and still is, the cost of the operations. The cost of peacekeeping operations “caused serious problems” and this is the reason that “observer mission have been less controversial” (Roberts & Kingsbury, 1993, p.197), because they cost less. Baehr and Gordenker (1999, p.91) added that “in some years, peacekeeping operations cost more than the rest of the whole UN budget”; for example, by the mid-1990’s almost 80.000 UN military personnel were in action all over the world. The United States in 1993 “sought to decrease share of peacekeeping costs from 30 per cent to 25 per cent creating new financial pressures on the world organization” (Fergus & Callan, 2002 p.95). This behavior of the United States among others “has left the United Nations in a vulnerable position” (Fergus & Callan, 2002. p 95). Although Urquhart (1992) cited by Roberts and Kingsbury (1993, p.238) pointed out that “the cost of two days of Desert storm, at about a billion dollars a day, would have easily covered all the UN’s expenses, including peacekeeping and emergency operations for a whole year”.
A common solution for the peacekeeping operations was that the disputed parts have to pay some of the expenses; in Kuwait for example “the two thirds of the expenses were borne by Kuwait and only the rest were paid by assessed contributions of Member States” (UN database). Nevertheless former General Secretary Boutros Ghalli (1995) cited by Fergus and Callan (2002, p.95) very successfully noticed that “the failure of Member States to pay their assessed contributions calls into question the credibility of those who have willed the ends but not the means — and who then criticize the United Nations for its failures”.
Conclusion
United Nations have played a significant role since its inception in 1945; however its post-Cold War action is considerably different from that in the Cold War era. Some of the main differences that weren’t mentioned in the text can be highlighted:
UN in the post-Cold War era organized “wider peacekeeping” operations or as O’Neill and Rees (2005, p.35) characterize it “multidimensional peacekeeping”
in the post-Cold War period there is a geographical spread of operations and an increased range of states contributed in personnel (Roberts & Kingsbury, 1993, p.235)
there is “an increased hybridization of peacekeeping in terms of the elements -including humanitarian and human rights components in some case” (Roberts & Kingsbury, 1993, p.235)
media play a vital role in the operations and they influence the United Nations to take action in an increasing number of cases (O’Neill and Rees, 2005, p.33-35)
in the post-Cold War era the forces “negotiate , assist, persuade and try to draw conflicting parties into a political process that can be assisted, but not coerced, by a peacekeeping and humanitarian presence” (Sellers, 1996,p.264)
and, in the post-cold War era attention “shifted from preventing violence to peacekeeping , including supporting civil society, institutional development and democracy as in the cases of East Timor and Bosnia - Herzegovina” (O’Neill and Rees, 2005, p.30).
However United Nations have several times been marginalized by the superpowers; during the Cold War it was the Soviet Union that “foster instability which might lead to regional change” (O’Neill and Rees, 2005, p.40) with the extensive use of veto. On the other hand, in the post-Cold War era it is the United States that demonstrate “a strong interest in an early resolutions of several crisis” (Sellers, 1996, p.264) like Haiti; this behavior though declined the positive impact towards people. The same behavior USA presented in missions in the Middle East which resulted sometimes in mass protests against the operations and the loss of faith of peoples in the peacekeeping effort.
Furthermore as for the theoretical approach, while the Cold War ended the fight between the Realists and the Liberalists assumed to come to an end. Fukuyama (1989) cited by Baylis and Smith (2005, p.190) wrote an article with which celebrated the “triumph of Liberalism”; the Cold War ended and there was no sign of war. Though, the morning of 9/11 changed the route of history and theory. As a result United States decided to “punish” those who believed to be the enemy and so the Realists came to be right. A new cycle of violence have started. Keohane (1989) wrote that “Realism offered something like a manual for maximizing the interest of the state in a hostile environment” (Baylis & Smith, 2005, p.162). It was the Realists who outlined that outside of the boundaries of the state anarchy exist; the 9/11 proved them right once again. As Baylis and Smith (2005, p.179) characteristically wrote “there are good reasons for thinking that the twenty first century will be a realist theory: Europe continues to be as divided by different national interests as it is united by a common good”. Concluding, history is repeating itself; from the mythical war of Troy until the “war against terrorism”, there is always a reason that drive people to war, though most of the times this reason ends to be wrong.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baehr, P.R. and Gordenk, L. (1999). The United Nations at the end of the 1990s (3rd ed.). London: Macmillan.
Baylis, J. & Smith, S. (2005). The Globalization of World Politics - An introduction to international relations (2nd ed.). Hants: Ashford Colour Ltd.
BBC (2002, December 5). Gorazde: The Peacekeepers Tale. Retrieved February 5, 2006, from BBC Online Network.
BBC (2006, January 18). New Peacekeeping Head for Haiti . Retrieved February 5, 2006, from BBC Online Network.
Boyd, J. (1972). United Nations Peacekeeping Operations: A Military and Political Appraisal. London: Anvil Books.
Browne, M. A. (2003, May 7). United Nations Peacekeeping: Issues for Congress. Retrieved February 5, 2006, from the AU database.
Burley, J. & Tregear, P. (1970). African Development and Europe. Bletchley: The European Printing Company.
Carr, F. & Callan, T. (2002). Managing Conflict in the new Europe - The Role of International Institutions. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Daniel, D. C. F. & Bradd C. H. (1995). Beyond Traditional Peacekeeping. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Durch, W.J. (1993). The Evolution of UN Peacekeeping. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fabian, L.L. (1971). Soldiers without Enemies - Preparing the United Nations for peacekeeping. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institutions.
Frangsmyr, T. (1989). The Nobel prizes 1988. Retrieved February 5, 2006, from www.nobelprize.org.
Gerstle, G. (2001). American Crucible. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Global Policy Forum (2006). Peacekeeping. Retrieved February 5, 2006, from http://www.globalpolicy.org.
Global Policy Forum (2006). The Security Council Veto. Retrieved February 5, 2006, from http://www.globalpolicy.org.
Goodrich, L.M. & Simons, A.P. (1974). The United Nations and the Maintenance of International Peace and Security (2nd ed.). Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
Gosgrove, C. A. (1970). The New International Actors - The United Nations and the European Economic Community. Bristol: Western Printing services Ltd.
Keohane, R. (1989). Theory of World Politics: Structural realism and Beyond. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Keylor, W. (1992). The Twentieth Century World: An International History. New York: Oxford University Press.
O’Neill, J.T. & Rees, N. (2005). United Nations Peacekeeping on the Post-Cold War Era. London and New York: Routledge.
Orbach, W.W. (1977). To keep the Peace - The United Nations Condemnatory Resolution. Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky.
Payne, C. (2006). Peacekeeping. Retrieved February 5, 2006, from www.globalterrorism101.com.
Roberts, A. & Kingsbury, B. (1993). United Nations, Divided World (2nd ed).Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Sarooshi, D. (1999). The United Nations and the Development of Collective Security. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Sellers, M. (1996). The New World Order. Oxford: BERG.
Twitchett, K.J. (1971). The evolving United Nations - A Prospect for peace?. Kent: Staples Printers Ltd.
United Nations. Peacekeeping (2006). New York: Peacekeeping Operations.
United Nations. United Nations Charter. Retrieved form www.un.org.
posted by Nikos Nyfoudis @ 2:34 AM
0 comments
