|
|
|
|
|
|
Resources |
|
|
|
UN Peace: Euphoria vs. Reality
| Article
# : |
16932 |
|
|
Section : |
CURRENT ISSUES
|
| Issue
Date : |
4 / 1990 |
1,870 Words |
| Author
: |
Mark A. Franz
Mark A. Franz is director of the United Nations Assessment
Project at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based think
tank. |
Much has been written on the purported successes of UN peacekeeping in the past few years. Most of it has been long on anecdotal sketches of various operations and short on critical analysis.
While this approach is understandable because the United Nations is a complex organization, it does little to enhance our ability to determine when and where a UN peacekeeping operation can actually improve the chances for the peaceful settlement of disputes - the apparent preconditions for success - and where it may do more harm than good.
UN peacekeeping is not easily defined. It has evolved from no specific charter mandate and has taken on many different forms in an attempt to adapt to the requirements of the various conflicts the United Nations has addressed. Although many of the operations typically labeled peacekeeping are not, strictly speaking, traditional military observer operations, they can be categorized as part of the "good offices" missions of the secretary general as this role has emerged over the past 44 years. The main characteristic that so-called peacekeeping activities have in common is that each was an item considered by the Security Council, which then resolved to endorse a peacekeeping mandate or a particular effort by the secretary-general.
A necessary distinction must be made between peacekeeping and peacemaking, although the former term means all special military activities, including facilitating negotiations and monitoring elections. Specifically, peacekeeping refers to those operations of a traditional military observer force serving along a border or demarcation line to maintain a cease-fire between belligerent
... (1994 of 11588 Characters)
Read Full Article
|
|
