Research and Explre Why Peacekeeping Missions Fail

WHY PEACEKEEPING MISSIONS FAIL
Name
Course Code: Course Name
Date
The international community establishes peacekeeping missions to maintain peace during a war aftermath. Leading sovereign states, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, consulting companies, and international financial institutions usually give out huge sums of money into post-civil war peace building and reconstruction. The quest for peace consumes huge amounts of international community’s money, policy attention, and moral energy. Since the end of Cold World War, at least 32 major peace agreements have been reached as well as many other ceasefires, interim accords, and peace initiatives. The peacekeeping mission practice has evolved significantly in the past fifteen years as it has been used increasingly in civil wars. Although there has been a considerable progress, some peacekeeping missions are associated with failure than successes. Betts notes that since the end of the Cold War the peacekeepers were deployed to mediate in civil conflicts around the world, they have achieved their peacekeeping mission in some cases while in others they have unknowingly extended the distress instead of relieving it. Such rare cases unfortunately happen even after all efforts have been put to have a happy ending. This paper investigates these unfortunate instances that seem to paint a negative picture of the much needed peacekeeping missions whenever communities or nations are at war and suggests what can be done to have a turnaround.
Failing Peacekeeping Missions
Fortna indicates that peacekeepers in a peacekeeping mission are usually unarmed or at most lightly armed as they are only allowed to use force in self-defense, and they operate with the consent of the belligerents. She further argues that the effectiveness of peacekeeping mission has been focused on civil wars and not on traditional peacekeeping between sovereign states. This may seem logical since civil wars are more common that war between states. However, the recent interstate wars between Ethiopia and Eritrea, and between the US and both Afghanistan and Iraq is an indication that interstate conflict needs to be considered. A war starts only when two sides in dispute choose to fight than compromise and it would end when the two sides agree on who will control whatever is in dispute. Each war is unique and complicated but the main cause is always similar to another. Wars between erupt because of sovereignty issues over disputed territory or influence over international transactions. Wars within states may be caused by disputes over power to reign or how the nation should be divided so that opponents can have separate governments. Therefore, any peacekeeping mission must put this into consideration otherwise forcing peace may make matters worse when the fighting parties have not yet kept away their differences.
There are no specific studies showing whether there will be peace when peacekeepers intervene or not. Only a few studies of general UN involvement in discussion and resolutions, fact-finding, mediating, and peacekeeping in interstate crises can be traced. Fortna cites a study by Wilkenfeld and Brecher who found that when UN is involved in a crisis, chances are that the crisis will end in an agreement than when the UN is not involved. However, they noted that the UN did not have any effect on the possibility of the parties in conflict to engage in a repeat crisis within five years. In addition, Fortna cites another study by Diehl, Reifschneider and Hensel, who also examined the effects of UN involvement on the recurrence of conflict. In their study, they controlled other factors that might make recurrence more likely such as the level of violence, history of conflict and crisis outcome. Despite all that, they also found that the UN has no considerable influence in preventing the recurrence of conflict.
Betts noted that for more than a year, the U.N. presence prevented forceful reaction to Bosnian Serb hassles because French, British and other units on the ground were captives to revenge. Threats by the U.S. and U.N. were not just weak and uncertain but also forceful and neutral. The UN used force on behalf of the Bosnian government, although with only a few symbolic air raids against Serb positions. While doing this, they did not allow those they were defending to buy arms. The UN actually threatened the Bosnian government with attack if it violated the weapons free zone around Sarajevo. This strategy bounced between unwillingness to undertake any combat at all and a commitment to fight on two fronts against both belligerents. Throughout the pressure from UN maintained a shaky balance of power among the belligerents but it refused to let either side win. The Serbs were not favored by the economic restrictions while the Muslims were prohibited from accessing arms. This was aimed at encouraging a consensus so that matters could be settled amicably. It is unfortunate that this did not result in peace or...