UN PEACEKEEPING IN THE
POST-COLD WAR EBA
Muzaffer Ercan Yilmaz Bandirma Economics and Political Sciences Faculty
Department of International Relations
Balikesir University
Bandirma, Balikesir
Turkey
Muzaffer Ercan Yilmaz, is an assistant professor of Conflict Resolution and International
Relations (IR) at Balikesir University, Bandirma Economics and Public Administration
Facult)', Bandirma/Balikesir. He graduated from Ankara University in 1994, completed his
M.A. in International Politics from The American University, Washington, D.C. in 1998,
and earned his Ph.D in Conflict Analysis and Resolution from George Mason University',
Fairfax, Virginia in 2002. He taught Introduction to Conflict Resolution at George Mason
Universit)'. He has been at Balikesir University since 2003, teaching Political History and
Inernational Relations theory. His research interests particularly include social identity and
inter-group relations, peacekeeping and peacemaking in the post-Cold War era, international
mediation, and the Cyprus conflict.
This article evaluates United Nations
(UN) peacekeeping operations in .
the post-Cold War era in terms of
its strengths and shortcomings.
Particular attention is devoted to
internal strife that dominates the
Cold War period as the principal
sources of current conflicts. In
coping with such conflicts, the utility
of UN peacekeeping is vmderlined.
But many of the problems UN
peacekeeping has faced are also
addressed, including recruiting
qualified personnel, finance,
expanding use of peace missions,
training and language problems,
as well as structural constraints on
successful operations. The study
draws attention to the need for
overcoming the present weaknesses
of UN peacekeeping to make it a
more efficient tool of international
peace and conflict resolution.
INTRODUCTION
The post-Second World War period has
witnessed a rapid decline in traditional
interstate conflicts, and a comparable
rise in internal ones. This trend appears
to be holding. In fact, one of the few
clear aspects of the post-Cold War
world is the prevalence of strife within
countries or between those just made
independent. Sometimes the fighting
is bet\veen groups defined by ethnicity
or tribe. Sometimes the government, or
the lack of it, is the main problem. In
any case, the result is confiict that bears
many of the characteristics of civil war,
such as the absence of a clear battlefield,
no sharp line between combatant and
civilian, multiple parties with uneven
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON WORLD PEACE
VOL. XXII NO. 2 JUNE 2005 13
UN PEACKEEPING IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA
force, and deep mistrust that make the fighting continue. Many of the
recent examples include conflict in Somalia, Rwanda, Kosovo, the Congo,
East Timor (now independent Timor-Leste), Liberia, Haiti, and Sudan.
When civil war-like conflicts occur, it would be natural to assume that
the parties should settle their own conflict, since this is their concern, their
business. But most of the time, because of uncontrolled escalation, as well
as the psychological components of conflict (e.g., the tension of hostility,
the lack of trust, the mutual suspicion, the impulse to secrecy, the biased
communication, and so on), conflicting parties are the least equipped to
stop fighting and design a solution by themselves. Thus, third-party intervention
often becomes a necessity in the process of conflict resolution and
peacemaking.
The term "third-party interThird-party
intervention vention" conveys a different range
often becomes a neces- °^ methods, whereby a variety of
Sity in the process of external parties (e.g., regional or
conflict resolution and "it' P^'"' '^' ^"^'""^ ?'^''"'
, . (UN), and non-governmental orgapeacemaking.
nizations) may become involved
in attempts to cope with a given
conflict. This article focuses on one
of the most visible forms of third-party intervention in violent conflicts
at the international level: UN peacekeeping. Among third-parties, the
UN has a special place due to its mission of being the grand guardian of
international peace and security. Thus, parties in conflict oftentimes expect
more from the UN than any other third-party that may have an incentive
to exploit their issue. But the question in this regard is: how effective is the
UN in dealing with violent internal conflicts that have replaced the Cold
War's ideological clashes as the principal sources of current conflicts.'' The
purpose of this article is to find some answers to this critical question by
evaluating UN peacekeeping in terms of both its strengths and weaknesses,
in conjunction with post-Cold War developments. Based on that evaluation,
several implications are also addressed to improve the utility of UN
peacekeeping so that it could become a more efficient tool of international
peacemaking.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON WORLD PEACE
14 VOL. XXII NO. 2 JUNE 2005
UN PEACKEEPING IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA
UN PEACEKEEPING AND ITS EVOLUTION TILL THE END
OF THE COLD WAR
The basic definition of UN peacekeeping refers to a UN-led international
activity that involves the interposition ofmilitary personnel in units between
conflicting groups, either to stop violence or to prevent it. The groups to
be kept apart would be state agents, paramilitaries, militia, guerrilla groups,
or even mobs. What they all share is a desire to use violence against the
other side as a way of conducting their conflict.
A broader understanding of UN peacekeeping, as it has evolved after
the Cold War, on the other hand, goes far beyond just coping with physical
violence. It refers to a multinational involvement in conflict settings
organized by the UN to create conditions for sustainable peace. UN
peacekeepers (military officers, civilian police officers, and civilian personnel
from many different countries) help to build peace and assist combatants
to reach a mutually acceptable solution, or monitor the peace agreement
if already signed. Such assistance manifests itself in many forms, including--but
not limited to--confidence-building measures, power-sharing
agreements, electoral support, and economic and social development. (See
Berdal, 2003; Serafino, 2005).
Up to the present time, there have been 60 peacekeeping operations
and 17 of them are still active. Ironically, the term peacekeeping is not
specifically mentioned anywhere in the UN Charter. Indeed, the precise
charter basis for many UN peacekeeping operations has remained ambiguous
for decades. Peacekeeping evolved as a pragmatic solution in the early
years of the organization when it became apparent that some ofthe Charter
provisions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security
could not be implemented as envisaged. In this respect, peacekeeping was
often referred to as a "Chapter 6-and-a-half' activity, meaning that it fell
somewhere between Chapter 6 (on the Pacific Settlement ofDisputes) and
Chapter 7 (on Action with Respect to Threats to Peace, Breaches of the
Peace, and Acts of Aggression) (Roberts, 1996, p. 298).
Until the collapse of communism in the late 1980s, there were only
13 UN peacekeeping operations, most of which concerned conflicts that
had arisen after European de-colonization. Many other issues, particularly
East-West conflicts, on the other hand, were dealt with outside the UN
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON WORLD PEACE
VOL. XXII NO. 2 JUNE 2005 15
UN PEACKEEPING IN THE POST COLD WAR ERA
due to the lack of cooperation between the United States and the Soviet
Union.
As they evolved from the 1950s to the 1980s, the traditional tasks of
UN peacekeeping operations included interposing between conflicting
parties and monitoring cease-fires. These tasks were usually carried out on
the ground of three key principles: the consent of the parties, impartiality
(of peacekeepers), and non-use of force.
The principle of non-use of force was especially central to UN peacekeeping
for many years. In fact, more than half the UN peacekeeping operations
before 1988 had consisted only
As they evolved from of unarmed military observers and
the 1950s to the 1980s, not counting situational exceptions,
the traditional tasks of ^"'"'^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ °"^y *" ^^^^^ of selfUN
peacekeeping operations
included interpos- f T - ^
, ,.. . forces ineffective as well. For examing
between conflicting pi, ,,,, Cyprus in 1974 and in Leba
parties and monitoring non in 1982, the presence of UN
cease-fires. These tasks peacekeeping could not prevent the
were usually carried breakdown oforder and subsequent
out on the ground of foreign invasions. Nevertheless, the
three key principles: the achievements of UN peacekeeping
consent of the parties, ^^^^ j'""^^" I'"'-'']' ^^'^
. "^ modestly successful, overall. They
impartiality (of peace- i^^i^^ed effective freezing of many
keepers), and non-use of international conflicts, some reducforce.
tion of competitive interventions by
neighboring or major powers, and
the isolation of local conflicts from the Cold-War's ideological struggle
(United Nations, 1990; Durch, 1993; Goulding, 1993).
UN PEACEKEEPING IN THE POST COLD-WAR ERA
Since mid-1988, there has been a great expansion in the number of peacekeeping
forces. From 1948 to 1978, only a total of 13 peacekeeping forces
were set up, and in the following ten-year period, no new forces were
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON WORLD PEACE
16 VOL. XXII NO. 2 JUNE 2005
UN PEACKEEPING IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA
established. From May 1988 to October 1993, a further twenty forces were
created. As of June 2005, the number of UN peacekeeping operations has
reached 60, 17 of which are still operating in the field, involving 66,547
military personnel and civilian police.
A main reason for this expansion has been the increased capacity of
the UN Security Council to agree on action in security crises since the end
of the Cold War. The decreasing ideological clashes between the United
States and Soviet Union manifested itself most clearly in the decline of
the veto at the Security Council. For instance, from 1945 to 1990 the
permanent members of the Security Council cast the following number of
vetoes: China,3; France, 18; United Kingdom, 30; US, 69; and the Soviet
Union, 114. Then, between June 1990 and May 1993 there was no single
veto. One exception occurred in May
1993 when Russia blocked a resolu- A main reaSOn for thiS
tion onfinancingthe peacekeeping expansioti haS boeii the
force on Cyprus. With this exception, increased Capacity of the
the post Cold War capacity of the (jN Security Council to
Security Council to reach agreement
has survived and constituted a key .7 . r.. ., ˇ
reason for the increase in the number "^^ ^riSeS after the end
of peacekeeping operations. ^ ' ^he UOld War.
A further reason for the expansion
of peacekeeping operations is also linked with the end of the Cold
War in that the post-Cold War era has generally demanded an increasing
need for international peacekeeping forces. For example, in the early 1990s
the collapse of two federal communist states, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia,
produced many ethnic conflicts (i.e., in Bosnia and Georgia) that
called for active UN interventions. Also, a series of peace agreements on
Afghanistan, Angola, Namibia, Central America, and Cambodia called for
impartial international forces to assist in implementing cease-fires, troop
withdrawals, and elections. Since the late 1990s, local conflicts in Kosovo,
Sierre Leane, the Congo, East Timor, Liberia, Cote d'lvoire, Haiti, Brundi,
and Sudan required peacekeeping operations as well, either to stop violence
or to monitor and help the following peace process.
Finally, after the end of the Cold War, the major powers were less likely
than before to see an international conflict as part of a challenge from their
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON WORLD PEACE
VOL. XXII NO.2 JUNE 2005 17
UN PEACKEEPING IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA
major global adversary that required a unilateral military response. Hence,
in a new spirit of cooperation, they were more willing to see a response
emerging within a UN framework.
Apart from the numerical increase in peacekeeping forces, since the end
of the Cold War UN peacekeeping operations have also involved a great
number of activities that have been either totally new or implemented on
a much larger scale than before, such as:
* Monitoring and even running local elections, as in Namibia, Angola,
Mozambique, the Congo, and Fast Timor.
* Protecting certain areas as "safe areas" from adversary attacks so that
people feel secure at least in these areas.
* Guarding the weapons surrendered by or taken from the parties in
conflict.
* Ensuring the smooth delivery of humanitarian relief supplies during
an ongoing conflict, as typically the case in Somalia, Rwanda, Liberia,
and Sudan.
* Assisting in the reconstruction of state functions in war-torn societies,
as in Bosnia Herzegovina, Fl Salvador, the Congo, East Timor,
and Liberia (Fide, 2001; Berdal, 2003).
THE EFFICACY OF UN PEACEKEEPING
The ending of the Cold War has created a new optimistic view about international
relations among many whereby it has become fashionable to speak
that force, in the form of military power, has run its course in international
politics. By extension, many (e.g., Fleitz, 2002) also attempted to dismiss
peacekeeping as a peace strategy. Such a view tends to see peacekeeping as
an attempt to contain violence rather than ending it.
This may sound fine, but too idealistic to fit the realities of the actually
turbulent world of the post Cold-War period, dominated by internal
struggles. In coping with such frequently violent conflicts, peacekeeping
often emerges as a necessary element of conflict management and has a role
to play in the overall process of peacemaking. Especially when adversaries
are engaged in mutual violence or armed clashes, peacekeeping appears to
be the most urgent strategy. Until violence is stopped, or at least managed.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON WORLD PEACE
18 VOL. XXII NO. 2 JUNE 2005
UN PEACKEEPING IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA
it is unlikely that any attempts to resolve competing interests, to change
negative attitudes, or to alter socio-economic circumstances giving rise to
conflict will be successful. By far, thousands of civilian and military peacekeepers
who have toiled over the past five decades have been successful, in
general, in keeping people alive and in preventing conflict escalation.
Likewise, in the absence of peacekeeping forces, any group wishing to
sabotage a peace initiative may find it easier to provoke armed clashes with
the other side, since there is no impartial buffer between the sides that can
act as a restraining influence. The absence of a suitable control mechanism
may enable even a small group of people committed to violence to wreak
enormous havoc, whereas the presence of an impartial third force can be
an important factor for stability. Historically, UN peacekeeping has been,
and still is in most parts of the world,
acceptable as a third-party in a way ThoUSandS of civilian
that a purely national or even regional and military p e a c e k e e p military
presence would not be. This erS WhO have toiled OVer
is mainly because the UN, as the sup- *l%a nast five d e c a d e s
posed guardian of international peace ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^^^ SUCCeSSful, in
and security, has no particular stake in i ˇ i ,
an outcome apart from a satisfactory general, in keeping
reduction in violence. It is therefore P'e alive and in
less likely for a nation-state, or even ing COnflict escalation.
a regional organization, to exploit
conflicts for its own ends.
In addition to dealing with physical violence, UN peacekeeping forces
can also help peacebuilding processes by providing international assistance.
In fact, in the post-Cold War period UN peacekeeping has displayed a
greater degree of flexibility in adapting itself to new circumstances as they
called for new forms of action. Peacekeeping operations expanded to include
rule of law, civil administration, human rights, and even economic development.
Thus, peacekeeping came to involve more and more non-military
elements to ensure sustainability. The UN Department of Peacekeeping
Operations was created in 1992 to support this increased demand for
complex peacekeeping, as well. Here are some success stories:
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON WORLD PEACE
VOL. XXII NO. 2 JUNE 2005 19
UN PEACKEEPING IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA
Bosnia and Herzegovina
When the UN peacekeeping in Bosnia Herzegovina (UNMIBH) ended
operations in December 2002, the most extensive police reform and
re-structuring project ever undertaken by the UN had been completed.
UNMIBH had trained and accredited an approximately 17,000 national
police force. This force has been quite successful in maintaining internal
security, while also making progress in curbing smuggling, the narcotics
trade, and human trafficking.
East Timor
The UN was called in to East Timor in late 1999 to guide the Timorese
toward statehood in the wake ofviolence and devastation which followed a
UN-led consultation on integration with Indonesia. The UN Transitional
Administration in Fast Timor (UNTAET) established an effective administration
whereby it enabled refugees to return, helped to develop civil and
social services, ensured humanitarian assistance, and supported capacitybuilding
for self-governance. The UN still has a peacekeeping presence in
independent Timor-Leste (UNMISET) to assist in building administrative
structures and developing the police service.
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Progress has been achieved by the UN Organization Mission in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) as well, suffering from
a prolonged civil war. From a small observer mission in 2000, MONUC
evolved to become,first,a disengagement and monitoring mission, then an
assistance mission for disarmament and resettlement, and now a complex
mission tasked with facilitating the transitional process through national
elections. At present a large portion of the country is at peace, and steps
have been taken towards re-unification and further stability.
Liberia
The UN peacekeeping mission in Liberia (UNMIL) has also been very successful
in assisting in the implementation of a comprehensive peace agreeINTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL ON WORLD PEACE
20 VOL. XXII NO. 2 JUNE 2005
UN PEACKEEPING IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA
ment. Violence and cease-fire violations decreased, the security situation
improved dramatically. The ongoing deployment of UN personnel is currently
facilitating the restoration of civil administration and governance.
THE CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMATICAL AREAS
While there cannot be any objection, in principle, to increasing missions
and expanding tasks, UN peacekeeping operations in the post-Cold War
period have begun to suffer some fundamental weaknesses as well. These
can be summarized as follows:
First, it seems that there is a growing disparity between the capacity of
the UN and demands of international peace and security. As of mid-2005,
the Department of Peacekeeping Operations is managing 17 field operations
throughout the world, including
a recently expanded operation in Cote There is a grOWing
d'lvoire and three newly established disparity between the
missions in Burundi, Haiti, and gapacitV of the UN
Sudan. As a result, the number ofUN ^^^ demands of interpersonnel
deployed in peacekeeping +ˇ t j
operations is expected to reach some "°"^"°' p e a c e a n a
78,000 by the end of 2005. But the Security.
crucial question arising in this regard
is: who will provide the growing peacekeeping personnel?
The United Nations Charter stipulates that to assist in maintaining
peace and security around the world, all member states of the UN should
make available to the Security Council necessary armed forces and facilities.
Since the first peacekeeping operation in 1948, the UN Truce Supervision
Organization (UNTSO) in Palestine, about 130 nations have contributed
military and civilian police personnel to peace operations. While detailed
records of all personnel who have served in peacekeeping missions are not
available, it is estimated that up to one million soldiers, police officers and
civilians have served under the UN flag in the last 56 years.
Despite the large number of contributions, one of the main problems
at present is that several of the world's most capable militaries, including
the United States and British military, are heavily committed in a long-term
struggle of defeating terrorism, thereby focusing on certain countries, such
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON WORLD PEACE
VOL. XXII NO. 2 JUNE 2005 21
UN PEACKEEPING IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA
as Iraq and Afghanistan. Their priority is not to be the world police but
defending their people and national interests against terrorist actions, in
particular, and revisionist movements, in general.
Further, since the Clinton administration, the United States has had a
tendency to consider UN peacekeeping operations as an "extra burden,"
thus becoming extremely selective in participating in them. In fact, on May
5, 1994, the Clinton administration's long-planned Presidential Decision
Directive (PDC) 25 on "multilateral peace operations" was unveiled. The
directive had been foreshadowed in (former) President Clinton's speech
at the UN General Assembly on September 27, 1993, in which he had
warned against the UN's reach exceeding its grasp and had suggested
some conditions for United States participation in new peacekeeping
missions. The overall approach of PDD-25 was to view peacekeeping as
a scarce resource. It strongly affirmed that the United States involvement
in peacekeeping had to be selective. Before there could be United States
support for multilateral peace operations, said the report, the following
factors had to be considered: the possibilities of advancing United States
interests; the existence of a clear threat to international peace and security;
clear objectives; the means to accomplish the mission; consideration of the
consequences of inaction; realistic criteria for ending the operation; and,
the consent of the parties to the conflict and a cease-fire.
Obviously, these conditions are rarely met in real-world conflict settings.
Besides, the interpretation of the United States has been subjective and
selective in accordance with her immediate interests. Accordingly, because
of both PDD-25 and the priority of struggle against terrorism, the United
States has been reluctant to participate in multinational peacekeeping operation
up to the present time. As a matter of fact, currently only one percent
of the troops and civilian police deployed in UN peacekeeping missions
come from the United States ( UN Monthly Summary, 2005).
On the other hand, the contributions of other major powers are also
rather limited. For example, the Russian participation in peacekeeping personnel
at present is a little more than one percent while about ten percent
come from the European Union. China's contribution is approximately six
percent, and Japan does not provide any personnel at all (See, UN Monthly
Summary, 2005).
So the little and reluctant support of great powers make developing
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON WORLD PEACE
22 VOL. XXII NO. 2 JUNE 2005
UN PEACKEEPING IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA
nations as main contributors of peacekeeping personnel. In fact, as of
June 2005, the ten main troop-contributing countries include Pakistan,
Bangladesh, India, Ethiopia, Nepal, Ghana, Nigeria, Jordan, Uruguay, and
South Africa. But these countries have generally limited means and qualified
personnel. Thus, finding troop contingents for burgeoning peacekeeping
operations still remains a major concern. A further challenge involves meeting
demands for the recruitment of thousands of skilled police officers and
civilian staff with expertise in confiict resolution, justice, civil administration,
economic development and other specializedfields.UN peacekeeping
must also secure other capabilities, such as tactical air support,fieldmedical
facilities and movement control operations--resources usually provided by
willing member states.
Apart from the personnel issue, the budgeting of expanding peacekeeping
operations constitutes another problematic area. At its peak in the
post-Cold War period, in the 1993-1994 period, the UN peacekeeping
budget was $3.6 billion, which supported 17 peace operations involving
as many as 70,000 personnel in the field and their logistic requirements.
By the year 1998, the costs dropped to just under $1 billion. But with the
resurgence of larger-scale operations, the costs for UN peacekeeping rose
to $3 billion in 2001-2002. The approved peacekeeping budget for the
year 2004-2005 is $2.80 billion. Yet with the additional requirements of
the new and recently expanded missions, that amount could grow by a
further $2.38 billion.
Who pays the bill? Legally, all member states are obliged to pay their
share of peacekeeping costs under a complex formula shaped mainly in
accordance with their economic capacity. But in spite of this legal obligation,
member states have been reluctant to pay. As of February 28, 2005,
they owe approximately $2.25 billion in current and back peacekeeping
dues. The largest debtors are the Russian Federation (over $500 million)
and the United States ($743 million).
To overcome the financial crisis, many alternative financing sources
have been proposed. These include instituting a global tax on currency
transactions, environmental taxes, and taxes on international transportation
and arms trade. Yet major powers in general, and the United States
in particular, are reluctant to reform the system, fearing that they would
lose political leverage.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON WORLD PEACE
VOL. XXII NO. 2 JUNE 2005 23
UN PEACKEEPING IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA
There are other issues with respect to the financial problem. For example,
the system of apportioning peacekeeping expenses among UN member
states has upset various major powers. The United States has long been
expected to bear over thirty percent of the costs of the UN peacekeeping
operations and wants that figure reduced to twenty-five percent. By contrast,
over 150 states are apportioned for peacekeeping at either one-tenth
or one-fifth of their regular UN dues, a situation that clearly requires some
modification. An additional problem is that dues for each peacekeeping
operation are collected separately, so each member state receives a large
number of bills in any given year, most of the time for operations in which
it may feel it has little at stake. As a result, the question of apportionment
and effective payment of peacekeeping dues remains a big problem. For
UN operations to be effective, this problem calls for an urgent, and realistic,
solution by the UN General Assembly.
In addition to the problems of personnel and finance, many of the
expanded tasks of UN peacekeeping operations proved to problematic in
practice. For example, assisting democracy or certain governmental functions
in states that has experienced civil wars depends upon local cooperation
and when this cooperation is denied, serious problems begin regarding
the operational success (Fortna, 2004). After all, peacekeepers are alien
forces and they cannot function successfully without some local support.
Likewise, the establishment of safe areas in war-torn societies threatened
the impartiality of UN as peacekeeping units utilized force to establish
such areas and to protect them from external attacks (Fletiz, 2002; Fortna,
2003). Fven in the case of humanitarian relief, the delivery of aid often
produced a failure for the UN personnel to think more deeply about the
root causes of conflicts. In other words, focusing on satisfying immediate
physical needs of people, like food or medical assistance, little or no attention
has been devoted to the problems that created the need for aid and
policies for tackling them (Norberg, 2003).
Above all, the central problem in the expansion of UN peacekeeping
tasks is the blurring of the distinction between peacekeeping and coercive
action. Providing order in many conflicting areas of the world has inevitably
resulted in increasing militarization of peace missions. This, then,
made UN peacekeeping forces face a serious dilemma: remaining passively
impartial or establishing order, even at the cost of use of force. The latest
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON WORLD PEACE
24 VOL. XXII NO. 2 JUNE 2005
UN PEACKEEPING IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA
examples reveal that UN peacekeeping forces take a more activist mission
in which there has been a much reduced emphasis on consent and non-use
of force. As a matter of fact, many post-Cold War peacekeeping forces, such
as UNPROFORin the former Yugoslavia, UNOSOMI and UNOSOMII
in Somalia, UNMEE in Ethiopia and Eritrea, and UNMIL in Liberia, have
been set up largely within the framework of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter,
downgrading the consent of conflicting parties and leaving greater room
for the use of force, as needed. This reduced emphasis on consent and
non-use of force was caused by a desire to overcome the past weaknesses of
peacekeeping operations, such as in the Middle East in 1967 and in 1974
on Cyprus where peacekeepers were unable to prevent foreign invasions.
In addition, there has been a need for a new approach to consent, for in
casesofarmedconflicts,apeacekeep- j ^ ^ increasing militame
force cannot rely on the consent . .  . . . .
of every local leader '"'ZatlOn of UN peaceHowever,
the increasing milita keeping forceS leadS tO
rization of UN peacekeeping forces many SerioUS problems.
leads to many serious problems. One One iS that any StrOng
is that any strong use of force in use of force in War-tOrn
war-torn societies frequently involves societies freauentlv
killing or injuring civilians, as well as -^^^^^^^^ billing Or injuradversaries.
When this happens, as it . . . . . ^ ,,'
did in Somalia in the early 1990s, the '"9 Civilians, aS w e l l aS
UN, in general, and its leading mem- adversaries.
bers, in particular, risk being accused
of acting in a colonial manner (Bellmy and Williams, 2004). Second, the
use of force undermines inevitably the impartiality of peacekeeping forces.
This, in turn, leads to a decline in the credibility of peacekeepers (Donald,
2003). Lastly, the UN system of decisionmaking is not well geared to controlling
major uses of force. When violent situations call for heavier tactics,
disagreements tend to arise among the participants of peacekeepers regarding
the degree of UN control. This was particularly the case during the
Bosnian conflict in which the United Kingdom and France were reluctant
to follow the UN authority on the ground.
Another problematic area is training and language. Troops, civilian
police and other personnel have been, and still are, of extraordinarily uneven
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON WORLD PEACE
VOL. XXII NO. 2 JUNE 2005 25
UN PEACKEEPING IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA
quality. In spite of the UN's urgent need for such personnel, there must
be higher standards that UN personnel are required to meet before they
can be dispatched on a peacekeeping operation.
As for language, UN personnel are often crippled by two kinds of
language problems. First, different contingents in the same unit may have
a difficulty in communicating with one another. Second, the contingents
may not be able to communicate effectively with the local population. This
can be particularly crippling when there is a need for intelligence, policing,
and administration (Roberts, 1996: 316).
A final shortcoming of UN peacekeeping at present is that establishing
these missions still necessities a consensus among permanent members
of the Security Council. It was addressed above how peacekeeping was
paralyzed by the veto power during the Cold War era. The end of the
Cold War has resulted in a spirit of cooperation and excluded largely the
former ideological clashes between the United States and Russia. But no
one can guarantee that this trend will continue. The fact that the fiiture of
UN peacekeeping will depend on major-power cooperation is a frightening
reality and inevitably gives rise to serious doubts with respect to the
prospects of peace missions.
CONCLUSION
In coping with internal strives of the post-Cold War era, the utility of UN
peacekeeping cannot be denied. Failure by the international community to
try to control such conflicts and resolve them peacefiilly may lead to wider
conflicts, affecting eventually many actors that may be far away from the
conflict zone. In today's interdependent world, few modern conflicts can
be regarded as truly local, but most others are not. Indeed, the post-Cold
War period has shown how quickly intra-state conflicts in one country can
spread and destabilize their entire region. Thus, international cooperation
is essential for a stable, peaceful world. UN peacekeeping, in this respect,
is an indispensable tool. Its legitimacy and universality are unique, acting
on behalf of 191 member states. Overall, compared to the cost of war, in
bothfinancialand human terms, peacekeeping is the "cheap" alternative in
the process of conflict resolution. Moreover, "UN peacekeeping can open
doors which might otherwise remain closed to efforts in peacemaking and
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON WORLD PEACE
26 VOL. XXII NO. 2 JUNE 2005
UN PEACKEEPING IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA
peace-building, to secure lasting peace."
On the other hand, as the above discussions attest, the problems UN
peacekeeping faces today confirm that a general and uniform global system
of peacekeeping is still not imminent. UN peacekeeping is patchy, ad
hoc, and contingent upon the interests and cooperation of major states,
while also more appropriate in some situations than in others. In fact, the
issue of selectivity may have to be more openly recognized if a capacity to
engage in collective military action under UN auspices is to be maintained.
It is vital that the achievements, reputation, and future possibilities of UN
peacekeeping operations not be undermined by its involvement in too
many conflicts and by a failure to address some of the difficult questions
that the UN has been faced.
REFERENCES
Bellmy, Alex and WilUams, Paul. "Thinking About Peace Operations." International
Peacekeeping, 2004:, vol. 11, pp. 183-212.
Berdal, Mats. "Ten Years of International Peacekeeping." International
Peacekeeping, 2003, vol. 10, (4), pp. 5-11.
Donald, Dominick. "Neutral is Not Impartial: The Confiising Legacy of Traditional
Peace Operations Thinking." Armed Forces and Society, 2003, vol. 29,
pp. 415-448.
Durch, William J. The Evolution of UN Peacekeepinjf: Case Studies and Comparative
Analyses. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993.
Eide, Espen B. "Peacekeeping: Past and Present." Nato Review, 2001, vol.
49, pp. 6-19.
Fleitz, Frederick H. Peacekeeping Fiascoes of the 1990s: Causes, Solutions, and
US Interests. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2002.
Forma, Virginia P. "Inside and Out: Peacekeeping and the Duration of Peace
After Civil and Interstate Wars." International Studies Review, 2003, vol. 5, pp.
97-114.
. "Does Peacekeeping Keep Peace.'" International Studies Quarterly,
2004, pp. 269-292.
Goulding, Marrack. "The Evolution of United Nations Peacekeeping." International
Affairs, 1993, 69 (3).
Liu, F. T. United Nations Peacekeeping and the Non-Use of Force. Boulder,
CO: Lynne Reinner, 1992.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON WORLD PEACE
VOL. XXII NO. 2 JUNE 2005 27
UN PEACKEEPING IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA
Norberg, Annika H. "Challenges of Peace Operations." International Peacekeepini,
2003, vol. 10, pp. 94-103.
Roberts, Adam. "The Crisis in UN Peacekeeping." In Managing Global
Chaos. Crocker, Chester A. et al. (eds.), Washington D.C.: United States Institute
of Peace Press, 1996, pp. 297-319.
Serafino, Nina M. Peacekeeping and, Related Stability Operations. New York:
Novinka Books, 2005.
The Clinton Administration's Policy on Reforming Multilateral Peace Operations.
(May, 1994), Washington, DC: US Department of US Publication 10161.
United Nations. The Blue Helmets: A Review of United Nations Peacekeeping.
New York: Department of Public Information, 1990.
United Nations. Monthly Summary, UN Department of Public Information,
2005.
UN News, February 25, 2005.
Internet References:
http://wvvw.policy.org/finance
http://www.un.org
http://www.un.org.peace
http://www.un.org.peace/bnoteO 10101 .pdf
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON WORLD PEACE
28 VOL. XXII NO. 2 JUNE 2005