Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland
Permanent URI for this communityhttp://hdl.handle.net/1903/7565
Browse
3 results
Search Results
Item Peacekeeper Impartiality: Standards, Processes, and Operations(2010-04) Levine, DanielIt is a commonplace (at least among those concerned with peacekeeping) that peacekeeping operations (PKOs) have changed dramatically since the end of the Cold War. At the same time, UN peacekeeping is still ostensibly governed by the “holy trinity” of principles developed earlier in its history – consent, impartiality, and minimum use of force. Understandings of impartiality, in particular, seem to have shifted in response to the increasing prominence of intrastate conflict, and to expectations that peacekeepers will stop human rights abuses and protect civilians as much as oversee an end to open conflict between parties. Impartiality in this context cannot mean simply standing aloof from the conflict – but what then does it mean? UN officials, analysts, and peacekeeepers in the field have given different answers. I have my own – impartial peacekeepers should take the impact on the peace process as their primary standard for deciding when and how to take action; should create structured consultations with local parties (armed and otherwise) for deciding how to act when people disagree over what the peace process requires; and should be willing to put all elements of their power, including but not limited to the use of force, in the service of the peace process. My answer is frankly normative and revisionist, based in reflection on the best concept of impartiality. I will discuss the varieties of answers given publicly, and in my own research to questions about what impartiality means, but I take that variety as evidence that there are many plausible interpretations of “impartiality,” and that some reflection on the space of possible meanings and the arguments that can be given for one interpretation or another can help us make good decisions about how we should understand the concept. If nothing else, I hope that clarifying that space of possible meanings may help clarify things and help someone come up with a better answer than mine. Clarification is needed as peacekeepers undertake more complex and dangerous missions, and are called on to use more force. Lack of consensus is present in the field, and this puts peacekeepers in literal danger if they are not resourced properly for the missions they will undertake and also in danger of failing in the eyes of the international public because expectations were not clear. The discussion here has implications far beyond the context of UN peacekeeping proper, though. First, UN practices cast a long shadow over peacekeeping/peace enforcement missions undertaken by other organizations, such as the African Union and NATO. Second, national militaries are increasingly involved in irregular contests with intrastate forces, generating increased interest in “peace and stability operations,” even if these are not labeled “peacekeeping.” The UN's peacekeeping principles were developed to respond to the need of maintaining legitimacy for operations designed to quell conflict in situations not that different from the ones international forces currently face in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. While national militaries may not be constrained by a historical fidelity to impartiality, or by quite the same interests and norms that govern UN peacekeeping, any intervention force that hopes to present itself as “on the side of the people” and not just a foreign conqueror can learn from the issues that have arisen with UN impartiality.Item Civil Protection and the Image of the 'Total Spoiler': Reflections on MONUC Support to Kimia II(2010-10) Levine, DanielImportant work has been done recently on operationalizing military protection of civilians. Initiatives by the UN, individual nations, and NGOs have tried to translate the general mandate to protect civilians from attack and abuse into speci c strategic and tactical principles. Most of this work has focused on how militaries ought to react to direct attacks on civilians, but thinking about civilian protection should also include a serious examination of the ways in which the approach of military organizations to the problem of "spoiler" groups can a ect the level and dynamics of attacks on civilians--where armed groups are interested in violent control of civilian populations, attempts to "dislodge" them may substantially increase the level of violence against civilians (beyond the dangers to be expected from being near active fighting). In 2009, the UN supported the Democratic Republic of the Congo's military in operations to dismantle the Hutu-dominated FDLR militia, at massive human cost. Critics have primarily focused on the UN's failure to protect civilians from direct attack, consonant with the general discourse on tactics. These criticisms are valid, but in this essay I argue that two additional considerations should be kept in mind: the way that military operations can affect violence against civilians, and the way that moralizing the approach to armed groups can limit military and political options for protecting civilians.Item Peacekeeper Impartiality: Standards, Processes, and Operations(2011-09) Levine, DanielThough UN peacekeeping has changed dramatically since its inception, peacekeepers are still ostensibly committed to the "holy trinity" of consent, impartiality, and minimum use of force. Impartiality has come under special pressure, as peacekeepers are increasingly expected not only to observe the situation, but to take forceful action against "spoiler" groups that threaten the peace or human rights. This essay draws on official statements, outside analysis, and a number of interviews with peacekeepers conducted by the author and his research assistant, to demonstrate that a wide variety of understandings of "impartiality" currently exist, potentially undermining peacekeeping operations. The author attempts to systematize these variations according to how they understand the standard of impartiality, the process for making impartial decisions, and the scope of operations that fall under the concept. Ultimately, the author argues for an understanding of impartiality that is practically focused on achieving peace and includes structured consultations with all parties as a conceptual necessity, not just a helpful technique.