|
|
UN Peace: Euphoria vs. Reality
| Article
# : |
16932 |
|
|
Section : |
CURRENT ISSUES
|
| Issue
Date : |
4 / 1990 |
1,870 Words |
| Author
: |
Mark A. Franz
|
Much has been written on the purported successes of UN peacekeeping in the past few years. Most of it has been long on anecdotal sketches of various operations and short on critical analysis.
While this approach is understandable because the United Nations is a complex organization, it does little to enhance our ability to determine when and where a UN peacekeeping operation can actually improve the chances for the peaceful settlement of disputes - the apparent preconditions for success - and where it may do more harm than good.
UN peacekeeping is not easily defined. It has evolved from no specific charter mandate and has taken on many different forms in an attempt to adapt to the requirements of the various conflicts the United Nations has addressed. Although many of the operations typically labeled peacekeeping are not, strictly speaking, traditional military observer operations, they can be categorized as part of the "good offices" missions of the secretary general as this role has emerged over the past 44 years. The main characteristic that so-called peacekeeping activities have in common is that each was an item considered by the Security Council, which then resolved to endorse a peacekeeping mandate or a particular effort by the secretary-general.
A necessary distinction must be made between peacekeeping and peacemaking, although the former term means all special military activities, including facilitating negotiations and monitoring elections. Specifically, peacekeeping refers to those operations of a traditional military observer force serving along a border or demarcation line to maintain a cease-fire between belligerent parties. Peacemaking refers to those efforts on the part of the United Nations, usually through the office of the secretary-general, that seek to facilitate an agreement or political settlement between hostile parties. There are as many variations on these two paradigms as there are UN peacekeeping activities, but the pair serves as a convenient framework for discussion.
Established in 1964, the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) provides a classic example of UN peacekeeping. And since a cease-fire between Greek and Turkish Cypriots in August 1974, UNFICYP has maintained a buffer zone along the 112-mile-long demarcation line that separates the parties. In this limited, well-defined capacity, the United Nations has achieved it goal of preventing the outbreak of hostilities. It is unclear, however, whether or not this role has been useful in bringing about a permanent political solution there. The prolonged cease-fire has, to some extent, served as a disincentive for final agreement between the two parties. While the first requirement of UN peacekeeping activity - that the two parties decide to quit fighting - is present, the impetus to achieve a political settlement possibly has been diminished.
In this instance, the United Nations has failed to achieve its goal of a negotiated settlement despite 16 years of effort. The inherent difficulty in achieving a peaceful, permanent resolution to any conflict is painfully evident in the case of Cyprus.
MAKING VS. KEEPING PEACE
The peacemaking side of the UN role in Afghanistan shows how the United Nations can serve as a facilitator
...
Read Full Article
|
|
