Running Head: THE UNITED NATIONS AND PEACE

Abstract The United Nations was created under the premise of keeping peace between nations after WWII. Since its creation, the United Nations has involved itself in a multitude of peacekeeping missions all over the world, such as in Rwanda during the genocide or Korea during the 1950s (United Nations, 2012). The question that is examined in this paper is if the United Nations has had a positive effect on keeping and maintaining peace or rather if it has had any effect at all. The United Nations peacekeeping efforts around the world are contradictory in nature they strive to prevent war and promote peace while their efforts in fact remain largely unsuccessful in terms of war prevention and peace. Keywords: United Nations, peacekeeping missions

THE UNITED NATIONS AND PEACE The United Nations and Peace Peace the word evokes the simplest and most cherished dream of humanity. Peace is, and has always been, the ultimate human aspiration. (Frngsmyr, 2012) More than fifty years ago, the United Nations was created after the end of World War II. It replaced the failed League of Nations that had existed previously. The United Nations has since grown from only fifty-one nations to over one hundred and ninety nations (United Nations, 2012). Since its creation, the United Nations has strived to increase peace and reduce conflict throughout the world. Oftentimes, they use peacekeeping missions and forces to achieve this goal. There are several questions that come to mind when thinking about the United Nations peacekeeping forces. Has the United Nations been able to keep peace? Has it made any real strides towards peace or has its missions been largely unsuccessful? This paper examines if the United Nations has had a positive effect on keeping and maintaining the peace. The United Nations peacekeeping efforts around the world are contradictory in nature they strive to

prevent war and promote peace while their efforts in fact remain largely unsuccessful in terms of war prevention and peace. In 1988, the United Nations Peacekeeping Forces received the Nobel Peace Prize for its efforts to mediate conflict around the world (Frngsmyr, 2012). In the 1988 Nobel Peace Prize award ceremony speech, Egil Aarvik spoke of the personnel who came together for the peacekeeping missions. They came from different countries and had widely different backgrounds, but they were united in one thing: they were willing to devote their youth and their energy to the service of peace. (Frngsmyr, 2012). The preamble to the charter of the United Nations represents what these peacekeeping personnel strive to do. It states:

THE UNITED NATIONS AND PEACE We the Peoples of the United Nations Determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom And for These Ends to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ

international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples (Allphin Moore & Pubantz, 2006, p. 289) Since the creation of the United Nations there have been a multitude of incidences where conflict has arisen between or within nations and where intervention occurred from nations and organizations outside of the conflict. Many of these incidences have involved the brutal killing of civilians such as what happened in Rwanda or what is currently happening in Syria. In a multitude of conflicts worldwide, the United Nations has sent peacekeeping missions into the situations in hope of trying to mediate the situations and resolve the conflict. As of March 2012, there were sixteen United Nations sanctioned peacekeeping operations throughout the world such as MINUSTAH (UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti), UNMIK (UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo), UNMIT (UN Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste), and UNMISS (United Nations Mission in the Republic of South Sudan). There have been roughly fifty past official

THE UNITED NATIONS AND PEACE peacekeeping missions of the United Nations (this number varies depending on the source) that have occurred throughout the world (United Nations, 2012). Almost every major region or continent of the earth has felt the impact of the United Nations and its peacekeeping efforts. Michael Doyle and Nicholas Sambanis (2006) discuss the success of the United Nations interventions. One of the successes in peacekeeping was in El Salvador when the FMLN (Farabundo Mart National Liberation Front) was disarmed and structural changes took place

within the country that allowed for it to function in a much less violent manner. However, it was mentioned that while it seems that there has been some success in the El Salvador conflict, there have also been several failures. There are reports that say that human rights violations do still exist in El Salvador; these violations have just been reduced in number thanks to the intervention by the United Nations. Another failure is that the United Nations has not been able to finish the initial reintegration process goals that they initially came in to stop: the violence and the formation of a more stable government. Violent protests have also taken place by members of the military who were demobilized (Doyle & Sambanis, 2006). This shows that while they were able to make some improvements and success in the situation, the mission was still plagued by failures. Cambodia is another example of where the United Nations has had some success in the peacekeeping missions. UNTAC (United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia) forces were able to reduce the level of violence within the country and some stability was restored. However, while the violence that existed in Cambodia for about twenty years previous to the United Nations intervention was lessened, there was still violence that existed after the UNTAC forces left. It is evident that while there were some definite failures in a few areas the mission was considered successful because the UN had a significant degree of administrative control

THE UNITED NATIONS AND PEACE over key elements of the peace process. (Doyle & Sambbanis, 2006, p. 213) There was more unity present in this mission by the peacekeeping forces and commanders than had been present in other peacekeeping missions and this largely contributed to the missions success. Failures such as in Cyprus and Rwanda occurred as well. The failed peacekeeping mission, UNFICYP (UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus), was first sent to Cyprus in 1964 and had a continued presence there for over thirty years (United Nations, 2012). There were many reasons why this peacekeeping and peace building mission failed. The most prominent and obvious reason was of the the divided sovereignty and continued presence of peacekeepers almost thirty years since their initial deployment does not allow us to speak of a peacebuilding success in Cyprus. (Doyle & Sambanis, 2006, p. 258) The continued failure over time caused problems in other areas people were much more skeptical of trying to achieve peace and did

not go about as actively trying to achieve as they did before. Doyle and Sambanis (2006) said, It is true that UNFICYP was constrained externally by the UNs financial crisis and major power interests. (p. 261) When the finances were tight and the people were critical of the efforts of the UNFICYP, its chances of success were much lower as they had a smaller budget to work with and fewer people to help. The mission needed not only financial support but also people willing to believe in the goals of the mission and actively try to achieve peace (Doyle & Sambanis, 2006). The Rwandan genocide differs from how the Cyprus peacekeeping mission failed. But some of the sources of failure were similar: high levels of hostility, an inadequate mandate (one that did not reflect the responsibilities envisaged in the treaty), and crucially, meager international capacity that resulted in weak implementation. (Doyle & Sambanis, 2006, p. 281) Part of the failure resulted because the UNAMIR (United Nations Assistance Mission for

THE UNITED NATIONS AND PEACE Rwanda) peacekeeping mission was too vague for the situation and did not recognize just how

serious the situation truly was and how deeply the fears and mistrust intertwined in the politics of the country. As a result of UNAMIR not recognizing just how much fear and prejudice existed in Rwanda, they did not implement policies to help counter it. What is most striking about the UNAMIR mission was that UNAMIR collapsed soon after ten Belgian soldiers were murdered[which] resulted in the deaths of about 800,000 people and the displacement of 3 million, 2 million of whom became refugees (Doyle & Sambanis, 2006, p. 285). UNAMIR failed because world leaders and the United Nations went into the peacekeeping mission expecting a quick and rather painless solution to the conflict instead of staying in Rwanda long enough to properly and completely protect the people and try to fix the situation (Doyle and Sambanis, 2006). I wonder what would have happened in Rwanda if the UNAMIR had stayed strong. Would there be a significant increase in those who survived and were not displaced? There have been several different scholars who have critiqued the United Nations peacekeeping efforts and have pointed out where they have failed in their missions. Many offer reasons why they failed and some offer suggestions for change. Roland Paris (2003) thinks that the way that peacekeeping missions operate under organizations like the United Nations do not necessarily use strategies that are the most effective or use means that promote peace. Instead, their peacekeeping strategies follow what the norms of the global culture dictate. If their strategies were to focus more on peacekeeping and not on what the global culture dictates, they would be much more effective (Paris 2003). Michael Lipson (2007) talks about how the United Nations peacekeeping operations are organized hypocrisy. This organized hypocrisy occurs in the United Nations because it is an international organization that has many actors from around the world within it. Each comes

THE UNITED NATIONS AND PEACE from a different culture and interprets what happens within the United Nations in different manners. This can cause tensions as the United Nations is trying to represent the general

consensus of all the nations that it represents and is not able to do that completely when each has a different view. While it can have positive effects such as managing irreconcilable pressures, organizational hypocrisy can cause international organizations to betray their missions, cause reforms to fail, undermine efforts to resolve critical global problems, and create or exacerbate gaps between organizational commitments and the resources needed to meet them. (Lipson, 2007, p. 23) Anna Roszkowski (2010) argues that there needs to be change on how the peacekeeping missions operate as there have been several missions that have simultaneously failed and succeeded. There have been missions that have been at a standstill for years as a result of the peacekeeping strategies not being effective enough to overcome the barriers it is facing. As a result of the way current peacekeeping missions operate, which is both costly and timeconsuming, the United Nations should not allow the peacekeeping troops to become a military force for the United Nations like it has started to resemble. Rather, Roszkowski argues, the United Nations should return to the original purpose. It was created to keep the peace through diplomacy; in the charter of the United Nations there was no mention of peacekeeping (Roszkowski, 2010). In fact in the preamble, force and military intervention was mentioned as a last resort (Allphin Moore & Pubantz, 2006). The United Nations has strayed from the way it was originally intended to keep the peace (Roszkowski, 2010). Christopher Leck (2009) takes a different approach and points out that the United Nations officials do not recognize that fact that the peacekeeping personnel do not always act in the best interests of the United Nations peacekeeping mission. Rather the personnel can and do work in a

THE UNITED NATIONS AND PEACE way that promotes their own national interests instead of strictly promoting the interests of the United Nations. The United Nations has also faced issues because control of the peacekeeping troops is not handed over to the United Nations by the countries that are contributing troops.

Rather the United Nations has to work with the countries in order to indirectly control the troops. This indirect command has issues associated with it because there is potential for the countries providing troops to decide to pull out of the mission if they do not like the duration or where and how the mission is taking place. This then brings to mind the issue of whether the United Nations is able to have control over the troops that are sent in during peacekeeping missions. If they do not have control, can more harm be done than good by the troops because the troops report to their respective countries first and not the United Nations? (Leck, 2009) Since the Cold War ended the United Nations has involved itself in more missions in more parts of the world (Lebovic, 2004). However, Contributions to UN peace operations from a country are explained by its capabilities, alliances, and conflict involvement factors that are critical to the realist argument that states direct their behavior toward countering and deflecting challenges from other states. (Lebovic, 2004, 933) According to Rourke and Boyer (2010), the realist perspective on international relations looks at the international arena as a jungle. War will always exist because the international system is an all against all system there is no controlling force that keeps the nations from fighting. The international arena resembles anarchy. A realist would look at the peacekeeping of the United Nations as just another way for the struggle for power to be played out. The United Nations does not intervene in every situation; they mainly intervene only in the situations where the interests of the countries that have power within the United Nations are supported (Rourke & Boyer, 2010). A realist also recognizes that the nation-states are the most important factors in the

THE UNITED NATIONS AND PEACE international arena. Each nation-state looks out for their own interests promoting their own power, military, economy, etc. while they are willing to let others fall apart if it is to their own

benefit. This would be another reason why the United Nations would decide to intervene in some situations and not others it depends on whether it is to the general benefit of most of the countries in the United Nations (Rourke & Boyer 2010). In some cases, like as in what is going on in Syria right now, the situation seems to require some form of intervention but the United Nations is not effectively doing anything right now. There are horrible violations of humanity going on and many people are being slaughtered, yet no intervention. However, in Iraq there were rumors of horrible acts against humanity and nuclear weapons (although no confirmation) and the United Nations sent observers to see if there were nuclear weapons. In fact, several countries that belong to the United Nations even sent the military to intervene. Some have theorized that Iraq had a much more strategic position than Syria has now. It is because of that that the situation in Iraq was looked into by the United Nations while in Syria the United Nations has not sent observers nor peacekeeping personnel to mediate the situation (United Nations, 2012). An example of the realist line of thought with dealing with international relations and peacekeeping would be as follows. Country A is an extremely powerful nation with a multitude of resources (economic, military, etc.). It is a key player not only in the United Nations but also a major player in the world economy and has quite a significant population size. If country A were to suddenly be attacked by another nation or if a coup were to happen and thousands of people were being killed, the United Nations would intervene in almost every case when looking at it from a realist perspective. Country B is a third world country that hardly has power when it comes to the international arena and the resources that it can offer are scarce. It does not make

THE UNITED NATIONS AND PEACE

10

any significant contribution to the United Nations nor is it a factor in the world economy and the population is much smaller than that of country A. If country B was suddenly attacked by another nation or if a coup was to happen, in many cases, the United Nations would not be as willing to intervene or if they do end up intervening, they would not act as quickly as they would in the case of country A. The decision to intervene in A and not in B, according to the realist, would be so that the balance of power can be retained and that those with the most power can stay in power. If country A were to fall, it could cause a chain reaction that could take countries C, D, E, and F. However, if country B were to fall, those in power would not have to worry about a sudden upset as it would only affect country B and maybe one or two neighboring countries. There would not be a giant upheaval in the balance of power. As Christians, we are called to promote peace and the United Nations is one avenue in which we can attempt to bring about peace. In Psalm 34:14 it says, Turn from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it. (Holy Bible, 2006) In Matthew 22:37-49 it says, Jesus replied: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. (Holy Bible, 2006) As Christians, we should follow both the command to love our neighbor and to promote peace. This requires recognizing that each person has human dignity and that human life is important and sacred. Loving our neighbor requires that we do not just sit around and watch others being slaughtered and maimed. Loving our neighbor would be trying to save them. One way in which we can intervene in situations and try to help others is through the United Nations. The goal when the United Nations intervenes in conflicts is to save lives by bringing the end to the conflict and stability to the area. Better lives can be provided for the people who live in these areas of conflict and instability as a result of intervention but looking at

THE UNITED NATIONS AND PEACE the evidence, it is clear the United Nations has not been too successful when it comes to their peacekeeping missions. Because, as Christians, we are supposed to love our neighbor and

11

promote peace, we should support the idea of intervention occurring so that lives and dignity can be saved and so that there will be fewer victims involved. However, when organizations, such as the United Nations, do not have interventions that are widely considered successful, we should be concerned and try to search for methods that will work before more lives are lost and more people are permanently maimed. As Christians, We support the goals of the United Nations peacekeeping missions but we should not support many of the methods that they use because they are ineffective and worsen the situation. The United Nations has involved itself in a multitude of volatile incidents since its creation over fifty years ago (United Nations, 2012). However, it has not always made effective efforts towards keeping and maintaining the peace. This partially occurs because they have mainly intervened only in places where the major powers in the United Nations have dictated the interventions to take place (i.e. in areas where the major powers thought that they would benefit from the intervention the most rather than intervening in every situation where human dignity and rights are being denied). Because of this, peace cannot be maintained worldwide. Rather those with the most power and resources in the world are able to somewhat maintain peace in situations where their power and resources might be compromised if peace and stability are not maintained. Even when one looks at the peacekeeping missions that are considered a success, there have been several areas within each that are considered failures. The United Nations has yet to have a peacekeeping mission that has been thought to be completely successful or even mainly successful and does not have several areas of failure. Doyle and Sambanis (2006) conclude that,

THE UNITED NATIONS AND PEACE But today as the United Nations is under attack in the United States and elsewhere, we should not neglect its authentic peacemaking potential. (p. 351) I agree that the United Nations does

12

not seem to be very effective right now. This does not mean we should deny the potential that the United Nations does have to perform good deeds and perform effective peacekeeping and peacebuilding throughout the world and not just in select areas of the world. However for the interventions to be successful and less costly in both lives and financially, these interventions should not take the form of military interventions, like many of the UN interventions do, but rather as Anna Roszkowski (2010) argues peace through diplomacy instead of peace through might. There is always the hope that someday the United Nations will be able to change their current peacekeeping practices so that they fulfill their peacekeeping potential and peace can be found worldwide.

THE UNITED NATIONS AND PEACE References

13

Allphin Moore Jr., J. & Pubantz, J. (2006). The New United Nations: International Organization in the Twent-First Century. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Doyle, M. W., & Sambanis, N. (2006). Making War and Building Peace: United Nations Peace Operations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Frngsmyr, T. (2012). The Nobel Peace Prize 1988: The United Nations Peacekeeping Forces. Retrieved February 27, 2012, from http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1988/un-history.html. Holy Bible: New International Version (2006). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Leck, C. (2009). International Responsibility in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations: Command and Control Arrangements and the Attribution of Conduct. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 10(1), 346-364. Lebovic, J. H. (2004). Uniting for peace?: Democracies and united nations peace operations after the cold war. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 48(6), March 24, 2012. Lipson, M. (2007). Peacekeeping: Organized hypocrisy? European Journal of International Relations, 13(1), March 24, 2012. Paris, R. (2003). Peacekeeping and the constraints of global culture. European Journal of International Relations, 9(3), March 24, 2012. Roszkowski, A. (2010). United Nations peacekeeping as an international tool for the maintenance of international peace and security: Has it exceeded its original purpose with

THE UNITED NATIONS AND PEACE the missions being carried out today? (Masters of Arts, Webster Graduate School). ProQuest, March 24, 2012 Rourke, J. T., & Boyer, M. A. (2010). In Ryan M. (Ed.), International politics: On the world stage brief (8th Edition ed.). New York, New York: McGraw Hill. United Nations. (2012). Peace and Security. Retrieved February 27, 2012, from http://www.un.org/en/peace/.

14