UN peacekeeping was created after WWII to maintain peace in the World. Despite the successful UN peacekeeping operations, such as the ones that were in Cambodia, Haiti, and Liberia, there have been much more unsuccessful operations. During the cold war, the UN peacekeeping was pretty much useless against the two superpowers. Despite the end of the cold war, the UN still had many failures in the 1990s. For instance, the ongoing violence and conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is still unresolved until today.
The aim of most peacekeeping missions is to reach an end point and withdraw. 2.1.8 PEACE SUPPORT OPERATIONS ‘Peace Support Operation’ describes the “ complex, multinational, military operation in support of diplomatic efforts to achieve the settlement of armed hostilities, including the use of force in restricted circumstances”. The term ‘Peace Support Operations’ appeared in the early 1990s in response to the changes in the use and type of peacekeeping operation that occurred at the end of the Cold War. It was designed to cover the continuing part of peacekeeping as the term peacekeeping was no more appropriate as a result of activities in which forces were obliged to take part. Wilkinson sees the term as linked with the several post Cold War complex emergencies.
Peacekeeping is defined as the active maintenance of a truce between nations or communities, especially by an international military force. It is concerned with maintaining peace in a post-conflict region. There are several non-UN peacekeeping operations worldwide, including NATO’s missions in Kosovo and Afghanistan and the African Union’s missions in Somalia and the Central African Republic. In this issue, we observe the activities of the peacekeeping forces under the control of the United Nations. The efforts of the United Nations at peacekeeping, under the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) have been directed towards providing security and political support to help countries make the difficult transition from conflict to peace.
In doctrine, consensus on the purpose of UN peace operations does not exist in the twenty-first century. This has led to an inconsistent use of the different concepts of peacekeeping, which causes confusion. The lack of a clear purpose of peace operations inhibits academics and other writers to fully describe the rationale of actions and the changing role of the UN in global politics in this regard. A study of peacekeeping activities to explain their development and rationale is problematic due to their political nature. This method would be even less useful for complex missions, where elements of peacekeeping and peace building are combined.
Peacekeeping operations can be defined as the imposition of an international presence in one form or another the objective of which is essentially to prevent violence from breaking up or to contain or curtail it where it has already broken out. James A approaches the concept of peacekeeping in three dimensions vis; a.”Patching up” which is non violent settlement ,which may not require using of armed forces. b. “Prolytatic” approach which is the taking of action that is designed to prevent the situation from deteriorating and c.”Proselytism” approach which is seeking to act as instrument of change in order to rid the international society of situations which the majority regard as better than sinful.Here,the operation is either conciliatory
In the 1990s the UN was involved, through action or inaction, in a number of humanitarian interventions. It started with the creation of a safe haven in Iraq for the Kurds and the decade ended with Australian intervention in East Timor. The lack of effective action in Rwanda leading to the killing of 800000 people in 100 days has means that very few people today support a complete non-interventionist approach. It is more or less agreed upon that humanitarian intervention can be justifiable in the extreme circumstances to end massive human suffering . After Rwanda the main cause for concern and debate has been about who should intervene and when.
A large part of the how humanitarianism, and humanitarian intervention specifically, is understood is largely based on the media portrayal and public discourse. Particularly in a conflict raging on as far away and as complex as the Bosnian War, the public relies on the media to outline what is going on. As Gregory Kent (2003) argues, state actors along with humanitarian agencies have a significant role in the development of media narratives and the subsequent responses by politicians. Kent also states that the perception of the seriousness of the Bosnian War had serious implications for what policy decisions were made. In the case of Great Britain, the “problem” of the Bosnian War was defined as one without solution and therefore made it one of little concern.
It is important to know that the organization per se does not have its own military troops, however it does have peacekeeping forces –these being supplied by the member states–. The peacekeeping forces are sent to specific regions where an armed conflict has recently ended so they can stop fights from happening again. Besides from maintaining peace, the United Nations also “aims to protect human rights and provide humanitarian assistance when needed” (ThoughtCo., 2017).
Its presence has made its way through our history and doesn’t seem to be stopping anytime soon. Almost every generation of man has seen war in their lifetime which has caused a multitude of new ideas and perspectives to come into light regarding whether or not war is a practical means of solving the world’s problems due to its violent nature. Although war has made major impacts on the world’s history, countries can use more useful tactics such as diplomacy, compromise, and neutrality. War has allowed the world and its people to change in a multitude of ways, but not all of the changes have been beneficial.Over