The national interests of the UN Security Council as an obstacle to effective peacekeeping, Essays (university) of International Relations

Download The national interests of the UN Security Council as an obstacle to effective peacekeeping and more Essays (university) International Relations in PDF only on Docsity! The national interests of the members of the UN Security Council are the biggest obstacle to effective peacekeeping. Discuss Introduction: Peacekeeping has become one of the most prominent conflict-managing tools utilised by the international community to restore and maintain international peace and stability. The UN has established over 70 peacekeeping operations since 1948, however the nature of these operations has evolved to include more multidimensional and higher threat missions, simultaneously the international political climate has changed greatly over time, presenting peacekeeping with numerous challenges and barriers.1 One of these barriers include the national interests of the UNSC members. There has been an ongoing debate between scholars in the realm of international relations on whether the national interests of the UNSC proves to be problematic and leads to inaction and ineffectiveness. For instance, some scholars, such as Beardsley claim that the parochial self-interest of the P5 members of the UNSC has the ability to shape the involvement of the UN and therefore hinder the effectiveness of certain missions, since ‘individual P5 members may benefit from political instability and conflict’ in areas of their specific interest.2 Others, however, disagree stating that international institutions hold more independence these days due to bureaucratisation, hence national interests of the UNSC members do not interfere as much with the effectiveness of missions.3 However, in order to determine whether the national interest of the UN Security council serves as an obstacle to effective peacekeeping, it is important to establish and define what 1Jessica Di Salvatore and Andrea Ruggeri, “Effectiveness of Peacekeeping Operations,” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.586, 1. 2 Kyle Beardsley and Holger Schmidt, “Following the Flag or Following the Charter? Examining the Determinants of UN Involvement in International Crises, 1945-20021,” International Studies Quarterly 56, no. 1 (March 2011): pp. 33-49, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00696,34. 3 Susan Hannah Allen and Amy T. Yuen, “The Politics of Peacekeeping: UN Security Council Oversight Across Peacekeeping Missions,” International Studies Quarterly 58, no. 3 (2013): pp. 621- 632, https://doi.org/10.1111/isqu.12086,622. 1 effectiveness of peacekeeping operations means and how it is measured. There have been several views among scholars and analysts regarding the criteria for evaluating the effectiveness, however there is ultimately no single or universal definition due to complexity and versatility of peacekeeping operations. Despite such ambiguity around the definition of effectiveness, in order to establish the success or failure of a mission it is useful to consider factors, such as : stakeholders, time-perspective and type of missions. In essence,this essay will argue that the national interest of the UNSC members could serve as a major obstacle for effective peacekeeping, mostly due to the power of the veto, which permanent members possess and utilise when their national interests are at stake. However, success or failure of the mission also highly depends on the different types of host states, specifically the nature of the conflict as well as the type of leadership. Since the international climate has changed greatly after the Cold War, most missions pose a higher threat and include conflict of complex nature.Therefore , this essay will focus on peacekeeping operations in the 2000s. What is considered to be effective peacekeeping? Defining the effectiveness of peacekeeping has long been a persistent and perennial problem for scholars in the field of international relations. The first studies on this perpetual topic, which shifted beyond a merely descriptive approach, were conducted by Paul Diehl in 1988.4 According to Diehl, the effectiveness of peacekeeping could be measured based on the mission's capacity to limit armed conflict, prevent its renewal and promote conflict resolution.5 However, Diehl’s criteria and approach has been subjected to high amounts of criticism and scrutiny by several scholars, such as Johansen who claimed it had a weak theoretical framework and overlooked certain factors.6 Some of the issues and factors for consideration Johansen outlined in Diehl’s approach were : the goals of the mission, whether the impacts should be short-term or long term, whether the effects should be examined on 4 Jessica Di Salvatore and Andrea Ruggeri, “Effectiveness of Peacekeeping Operations”,4. 5 Ibid.,4 6 Daniel Druckman et al., “Evaluating Peacekeeping Missions,” Mershon International Studies Review 41, no. 1 (1997): p. 151, https://doi.org/10.2307/222819. 2 considered throughout the essay for analysis of case studies and reinforcement of the argument. How does the national interests of the UNSC hinder effective peacekeeping? The UN Security Council’s primary role and responsibility is to maintain international peace and security. It consists of 15 members, 5 of them are permanent members (P5), who possess the power of the veto and include : United States, France, Britain, China and Russia. 15 Initially, when the UN was created during the course of the Cold War, these members were considered to be military powers and the ultimate purpose of the veto was to prevent the outbreak of war and conflict between them. However, the power of the veto proved to be extremely problematic. The permanent members of the Security Council have the right to utilise veto to their advantage, thus blocking a resolution whenever their interests are threatened or if the interest is low, investing little into the operation. Apart from the veto, the members of the P5 frequently disagree on how most conflicts should be run due to their own self-interest, triggering inaction in the UNSC and thus hindering effectiveness of peacekeeping missions. This view is further reinforced by scholars, such as Breadsley, who believe that the chances and overall likelihood of UN involvement in a conflict highly depends on whether the national interests of the P5 members are at stake, which implies that the members are heavily biassed in favour of operations which are carried out in certain countries and regions.16 Hence, Beardsley criticises the UN and portrays it as nothing but a front for the interests of its most powerful members, implying that the UN is unlikely to commit substantial attention and resources to conflicts which do not directly impinge on the interests of the P5.17 In 15Anette Sonback, “How Successful Has the UN Been in Maintaining International Peace and ...,” E- International Relations , November 8, 2020, https://www.futureworldfoundation.org/Content/Article.aspx?ArticleID=25819, 1. 16Kyle Beardsley and Holger Schmidt, “Following the Flag or Following the Charter? Examining the Determinants of UN Involvement in International Crises, 1945-20021,” 36. 17 Ibid., 36 5 essence, when the national interest of the UNSC members is low there is a higher risk of oversight to prevent DPKO from investing in a conflict and vice versa.18 Moreover, some analysts extend and broaden this argument even further by claiming that the permanent members of the Security Council utilise the UN as a vehicle for advancing a neocolonial agenda.19 On the other hand, scholars, such as Allen argue that while the national interests of the P5 members has the ability to influence and in some cases prevent effectiveness of a mission, there is also evidence to suggest that those interests do not ‘wholly eliminate institutional independence’, which creates missions with ‘wide latitude and unlimited times to carry out the missions’. In addition, she goes on to argue that the goals and aims of the institutions are being prioritised and gaining more significance than state preferences, leading to more effective missions.20 There are also scholarly perspectives, which argue that the national interest of the UNSC is not the main obstacle to effective peacekeeping, introducing other important factors, such as the peacekeeping trilemma.21 In essence, the Security Council faces a peacekeeping trilemma, where three main strategic goals coexist, however cannot be achieved all at once, which in turn puts contradictory pressures on peacekeeping operations.22 These goals are : success maximisation, which implies the implementation of multidimensional mandates even in high risk environments ; risk minimization, which aims to increase the safety and security of UN peacekeepers reducing casualties ; maximisation of cost-effectiveness, which strives to reduce financial costs and utilising available resources effectively.23 All of these goals 18Susan Hannah Allen and Amy T. Yuen, “The Politics of Peacekeeping: UN Security Council Oversight Across Peacekeeping Missions,” 622. 19 Kyle Beardsley and Holger Schmidt, “Following the Flag or Following the Charter? Examining the Determinants of UN Involvement in International Crises, 1945-20021” , 36. 20Susan Hannah Allen and Amy T. Yuen, “The Politics of Peacekeeping: UN Security Council Oversight Across Peacekeeping Missions,”, 630. 21Paul D. Williams, “The Security Council's Peacekeeping Trilemma,” International Affairs, May 2019, https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiz199., 499. 22 Ibid., 480. 23 Ibid., 481. 6 cannot be applied simultaneously, thus may influence the success of peacekeeping missions. While it is true that the parochial interests of the P5 members may serve as a barrier to effective peacekeeping, success of a mission highly depends on the nature of the conflict and ultimately the conditions of the host state. Case Study : Syria One of the most prominent case studies, which reinforces the fact that apart from national interests, the conditions of the host-state and nature of the conflict plays an equally if not even a more important role in hindering the effectiveness of peacekeeping missions, is Syria. The UN had a UNSMIS mission in Syria, which turned out to be extremely short-lived and unsuccessful, failing to prevent the escalation of a civil war, which claimed millions of lives.24 First of all, the evaluation of the effectiveness of this missions should be established in order to The failure of the mission was in part due to the conflicting views, national interest and strategic tensions between the members of the Security Council. For instance, the permanent members of the UNSC namely Russia and China blocked a resolution which aimed to resolve conflict and end fighting in Syria.25 Ultimately, this was the 13th time Russia has utilised its veto powers, since the outbreak of the conflict in 2011, resulting in the death of approximately half a million people.26 After the UN had first raised concerns regarding the situation in Syria, Russia clearly positioned itself on this matter arguing that the conflict was entirely an internal affair, as well 24Joachim Alexander Koops et al., “United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS),” in The Oxford Handbook of United Nations Peacekeeping Operations (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2017., 2015). 884. 25Peter Nadin et al., “How the UN Security Council Failed Syria,” Home, April 27, 2022, https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/how-un-security-council-failed-syria. 26 Peter Nadin et al., “How the UN Security Council Failed Syria,” Home, April 27, 2022, https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/how-un-security-council-failed-syria. 7 members of the UNSC was one of the main obstacles eventually resulting in the withdrawal of the mission in 2009. Specifically, due to military and national interests Russia vetoed a resolution for extending the UNOMIG’s mandate, reinforcing the fact that the national interests of the P5 members hinder the effectiveness of peacekeeping missions. However, while Russia’s personal agenda triggered the withdrawal of the mission, UNOMIG lasted for 16 years during which it encountered several problems linked to the conditions of the host state and the complex nature of the conflict, influencing some of their failures. For instance, one of the greatest destabilising factors for UNOMIG was the Abkhazian government in exile, which had political and partisan links.38 As long as this group remained present and militarily active on the Georgian side, the likelihood of a decrease in violence was very small.39 Moreover, there have been multiple attempts by the Georgian government to question and limit UNOMIG’s authority in the Kodori Valley and the Kulevi training area.40 UNOMIG suffered an extreme incident when a UN helicopter was downed in 2001 by a rocket.41 UNOMIG also faced direct threats during the course of the mission, for instance, peacekeepers were made the target of ambushes, were under direct fire, as well as the incidents of hostage takings.42 Hence, it is clear that the national interest of the UNSC is not the only obstacle to effective peacekeeping, but also the conditions of the host state should be considered. Conclusion: To conclude, this essay has argued that indeed the national interests of the UNSC members present an obstacle to effective peacekeeping. The power of the veto and overall conflicting 38 Eden Cole, Philipp Fluri, and Axel Wohlgemuth, “Chapter 6 : Successes and Failures of International Observer Missions in Georgia ,” in From Revolution to Reform: Georgia's Struggle with Democratic Institution Building and Security Sector Reform (Vienna: Landesverwaltungsakademie, 2005),143. 39 Ibid.,143. 40 Ibid.,138. 41 Ibid.,138. 42 Ibid.,138. 10 views of the council members leads to inactivity and limited action and funding in regards to peacekeeping missions. However, the international system has shifted from a bipolar one to a multipolar one and the trends of peacekeeping operations have undergone significant changes. The international political climate after the Cold War influenced the nature of the conflicts greatly, thus presenting peacekeeping with a challenge of dealing with higher threat and complex conflicts, hindering effectiveness. This has been clearly portrayed through case studies analysed in the essay, namely Syria and Georgia. 11 Bibliography: Allen, Susan Hannah, and Amy T. Yuen. “The Politics of Peacekeeping: UN Security Council Oversight Across Peacekeeping Missions.” International Studies Quarterly 58, no. 3 (2013): 621–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/isqu.12086. Beardsley, Kyle, and Holger Schmidt. “Following the Flag or Following the Charter? Examining the Determinants of UN Involvement in International Crises, 1945-20021.” International Studies Quarterly 56, no. 1 (2011): 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- 2478.2011.00696.x. Cole, Eden, Philipp Fluri, and Axel Wohlgemuth. “Chapter 6 : Successes and Failures of International Observer Missions in Georgia .” Essay. In From Revolution to Reform: Georgia's Struggle with Democratic Institution Building and Security Sector Reform. Vienna: Landesverwaltungsakademie, 2005. Di Salvatore, Jessica, and Andrea Ruggeri. “Effectiveness of Peacekeeping Operations.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.586. Druckman, Daniel, Paul C. Stern, Paul Diehl, A. Betts Fetherston, Robert Johansen, William Durch, and Steven Ratner. “Evaluating Peacekeeping Missions.” Mershon International Studies Review 41, no. 1 (1997): 151. https://doi.org/10.2307/222819. Koops, Joachim Alexander, Norrie MacQueen, Thierry Tardy, and Paul D. Williams. “Peacekeeping in the 21st Century .” Essay. In The Oxford Handbook of United Nations Peacekeeping Operations. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2017., 2015. 12