The Ambiguities and Dilemmas in the Changing Principles and Practices of Peacekeeping- Perspectives from Experts and Soldiers on the Ground

Abstract

Peacekeeping is one of the most important tools for conflict management and the most widely employed mechanism for introducing a modicum of stability in highly volatile, conflict stricken

areas of the world. Peacekeepers are mandated to help navigate a country out of a difficult scourge of war and towards the ultimate end of a sustainable peace. In order to ensure the legitimacy and objectivity of what is, in effect, an international military intervention, UN peacekeeping was formed on the bedrock of three foundation principles. These include host states’ consent, impart ialit y, and the minimal use of force for self-defence purposes, as enshrined in the Brahimi Report and Capstone Doctrine. These ideas have acquired an almost constitutional status and continue to be regarded as guiding principles even when the context and dimensions of peacekeeping have changed radically. Peacekeepers are expected to take actions in the interest of international peace and security, and not in serving the narrow interest of any particular party or state. Impartiality is essential for building a trust between the peacekeepers and all factions of a conflict. Conflict is exacerbated when peacekeepers are viewed by any one side as the “enemy” rather than as impartial mediators working for mutual peace. Peacekeeping practitioners have been traditionally required to use force only to protect themselves, not to win a war for any particular side or to impose any kind of political solution to the conflict. However, with the evolution of peacekeeping into more and more forceful operations- what has been variously regarded in the literature as the era of “mult idimensional” peacekeeping or the “robust turn” in peace operations- a growing gap is observed in the doctrine and the actual practice of peacekeeping. Peacekeeping missions have evolved to have more ambitious mandates and enforcement activities. There is an increasing tolerance for offensive use of force, and a growing distance with the ideal of impartiality. This research explores the militarization of peacekeeping away from the traditional Chapter 6- consent-based operations, towards missions consisting of more heavily armed soldiers, authorized to use “all necessary means” under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, to achieve such goals as the Protection of Civilians (POC) and the particular objectives set out in the mandate. The meaning and understanding of the trinity principles has evolved with the changing nature of peacekeeping, and their relevancy today in the operational environments of robust peace operations is being called into question. In light of the growing gap between the ideational doctrine and the practical conduct of peacekeeping, it is argued that modern robust practices in Peace Operations engender paternalistic dynamics between the enlightened states of the West and the Third World state recipients of these missions. Peacebuilding practices promoted in such mission equate good governance with democratic, capitalistic norms and privilege Western ideals as universal truths. Excessively robust peacekeeping practices that are flouting the essence of impartiality threaten to raise the spectre of imperialism in the global order of international state relations.