Peaceful Advice for UN Peacekeeping
Why do we have peacekeeping? The United Nations (UN) established UN peacekeeping in 1948 (10 Facts You Need to Know About UN Peacekeeping) as a way to sustain peace in a state which just experienced the destruction of a civil war. Peacekeeping has brought together many countries from around the world and continues to thrive with the cooperation of nations as there are currently 17 peacekeeping missions deployed over 4 continents (10 Facts You Need to Know About UN Peacekeeping). UN peacekeeping although intended for the greater good, falls short of meeting those intentions as it could work more effectively with just a few improvements. Peacekeeping lacks adequate numbers of personnel required to effectively
…show more content…
The first way is by diverting the combatants’ interest in making the civilians a target by separating combatants from each other to reduce warfare activities (Hultman, Kathman, and Shannon). The other means of protection of civilians is from behind the battle lines, where peacekeepers create physical barriers between the combatants and the civilians who may be in danger of being a target (Hultman, Kathman, and Shannon). The only way the UN peacekeepers could carry out these two tasks effectively is if there were enough of them on the field, which is not the case due to budget constraints. Statistics reveal that armed police officers, in addition to the above peacekeepers, are in fact one of the strongest means of civilian protection after a civil war (Hultman, Kathman, and Shannon). Police act as the physical barrier between the combatants and the civilians and by doing so this proves increased difficultly in civilian accessibility by the combatants (Hultman, Kathman, and Shannon). In this case the combatants would need greater equipment and more armed forces to …show more content…
By encouraging locals to cooperate with the peacekeepers, a stronger sense of stability and purpose within the community is formed. In the short run, UN peacekeepers can immediately and efficiently work to protect civilians as long as there are enough troop members (Joshi). In addition, the presence of UN peacekeepers tends to influence the government to assume a democratic ruling (Joshi). However, peacekeepers do not occupy a country forever, thus there must be a long-term solution for the state set accordingly for long-standing peace. Joshi’s research also shows certain post-civil war rebel groups have difficulty adjusting to democratic governing systems (Joshi). A civil war does not necessitate the need of democratic ruling nor is a democracy always successful in a state. Reliance building leads to political empowerment, hence, whether or not a democratic governing system is best suited for the state, the state is more likely to come to that conclusion themselves instead of being influenced by the peacekeepers. In the long run, preparing local communities for the shock of war and
"Peacekeeping and Peacemaking." Reading and Remembrance . N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Jan. 2014. . (tags: none | edit tags)
Canada’s role as a peacekeeper was significantly played in the 1950’s when it began; a major result of this was because of man named Lester Pearson. The peacekeeping operations were a big part in the war as it allowed combatants to try and resort to a more effective solution rather than fighting or going to war and causing a conflict. Peacekeeping in this country is especially well known for being able to deploy its troops so quickly in major missions which need attention. In today’s society the united nations in Canada is responsible for deploying the peace operations, what this country looks to do in these missions is to bring about peace in the areas which are greatly suffering and need some form of sustainable peace. The traditional role of these operations is to ensure long term developmental assistance as well working with the United Nations to ensure the best operations are brought to the table and that they are being done effectively. Peacekeeping doesn’t just involve the military bei...
In the early years of Canada before Confederation Canada had been defended by the British Army, and some units known as the Canadian Militia. After a few years new units were created to defend Canada such as the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery, the Royal Canadian Dragoons. These troops participated in many missions to protect Canada, one of them would be the North West Rebellion for Confederation in 1885 in which Canada fought against Saskatchewan to bring peace, and secure the province. In this battle 58 soldiers lost their life, 98 got wounded, and 26 were capture. For World at War 1 all this militias came together to create the Canadian Expeditionary force, this force was mostly full of volunteers there we around 619,646 soldiers in the force at that time in which they fought many battles during World at War 1. One of the most famous one is Vimy Ridge, at Vimy Ridge all the allied forces could not get through since the ridge Germany had a an advantage in a high location in which their army was placed. Canada as a young nation no one believed that Canada would get passed it. But on April 12, 1917 Canadian Soldiers had full control over the ridge, but this had not been achieve easily it cost the life of 10,602 Canadians. For World at War 2 in the 1940s The Canadian Militia was renamed to the Canadian Army. This new army was formed as part of NATO which is in charge of the protection of all North America. Canada also fought many battles in World at War 2 to free, and protect the liberty of other countries, and people specially the Jewish community. Since then Canada knew the great power they have to help people in need at the end of World War 2 In 1939, 20 Years later in 1956 Canada became part of the United Nations.
Political violence is action taken to achieve political goals that may include armed revolution, civil strife, terrorism, war or other such activities that could result in injury, loss of property or loss of life. Political violence often occurs as a result of groups or individuals believing that the current political systems or anti-democratic leadership, often being dictatorial in nature, will not respond to their political ambitions or demands, nor accept their political objectives or recognize their grievances. Formally organized groups, Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), businesses and collectives of individual citizens are non-state actors, that being that they are not locally, nationally or internationally recognized legitimate civilian or military authorities. The Cotonou Agreement of 2000 defines non-state actors as being those parties belonging to the private sector, economic and social partners and civil society in all its forms according to national characteristics. Historical observation shows that nation states with political institutions that are not capable of, or that are resistant to recognizing and addressing societies issues and grievances are more likely to see political violence manifest as a result of disparity amongst the population. This essay will examine why non-state political violence occurs including root and trigger causes by looking at the motivations that inspire groups and individuals to resort to non-conforming behaviors that manifest as occurrences of non-state political violence. Using terrorism and Islamic militancy on the one side, and human rights and basic freedoms on the other as examples, it will look at these two primary kinds of political violence that are most prevalent in the world ...
...ities to come together, and causes people to re-evaluate their relationships with one another, all toward ensuring that, on the whole, peace continues into the future.
An alternative model of peacebuilding would be an approach that is built upon community initiatives, similar to transformative peacebuilding. It is important that each situation is evaluated and the best suited institutions and structures are established. This means that in some situations the structures of politics, economics, justice and governance will not conform to the formulaic liberal model. Bottom up initiatives allow for engagement with local institutions, customs and norms (Newman,et Al.,2009,46). Furthermore, a transformative peacebuilding approach would empathize addressing the underlying sources of violence in each post- conflict community. This alternative model of peacebuilding would also promote growth oriented adjustment policies
Humanitarian law requires that parties to an armed conflict must differentiate between the civilian population and combatants. Civilians and civilian property are required to be constantly protected from harm. Attacks may be directed solely against military
Rethinking Violence: States and Non-state Actors in Conflict. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2010. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed April 22, 2014).
Sotomayor, Arturo C. “Peacekeeping Effects in South America: Common Experiences and Divergent Effects on Civil-Military Relations.” International Peacekeeping 17. No. 5 (2010).
The Syrian Civil War is a good example of world leaders playing by the rules of realism. The civil war began in March of 2011 as part of the Arab Spring, and by July of 2012 17,000 have died and another 170,000 fled the country (Almond). The United Nations Security Council in February of 2012 had tried t...
Democratic states are perceived to be more peaceful because “democracies do not attack each other.” The proposition that democracies never (or rarely; there is a good deal of variation about this) go to war against one another has nearly become a truism. Since Michael Doyle’s essay in 1983 pointed out that no liberal democracy has ever fought a war with another democracy , scholars have treated pacifism between as democracies, “as closest thing we have to an empirical law in international relations.” The democratic peace proposition encourages hope for a new age of international peace. Over the years since Michael Doyle’s essay a lot of literature has been written about “democratic peace theory”. A lot of analysis has focused on the claim- that liberal democracies do not fight each one another. There is a lot of action- reaction sequence in the academic arguments. As an idea catches on it accumulates adherents. The more popular an idea, there is more likehood of a critical reaction that raises serious and strong reservations about the validity of the new idea. In this essay, I would like to examine the claim- that democratic states are more peaceful as democracy causes peace. In this essay I draw on the writings of John M. Owen, Michael Doyle, Christopher Layne, Mansfield and Snyder, Alexander Wendt, Robert Keohane and Lisa Martin for their views on why democracies do not fight one another and then deduce my own conclusions.
1. As far as peace keeping methods go, the reputation of the United Nations is very pitiable. This is not only because they have not been doing their job to it’s fullest extent, but also because the member states on the security council haven’t given the UN the power it needs if it is to be a successful force in peace keeping methods.
Although, within the U.N. Charter of 1945, Article 2(4) prohibits the use of force against ‘the territorial integrity or political independence of any state’ (U.N. Charter, art.2 para.4), it has been suggested by counter-restrictionist international lawyers, that humanitarian intervention does not fall under these criteria, making it legally justifiable under the U.N. Charter (e.g. Damrosch 1991:219 in Baylis and Smith 2001: 481). However, this viewpoint lacks credibility, as it is far from the general international consensus, and unlikely the initial intentions of the draftsmen of the charter. In more recent times, one can examine the emerging doctrine of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’(RtoP), which was adopted unanimously by the UN in 2005, as a far more persuasive example of modern legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. While not consolidated within international law, RtoP, which promotes humanitarian intervention where sovereign states fail in their own responsibility to protect their citizens, does use legal language and functions as a comprehensive international framework to prevent human rights
The democratic peace theory was not always seen as the substantial argument and significant contribution to the field of International Relations that it is today. Prior to the 1970’s, it was the realist and non-realist thought that took preeminence in political theoretical thinking. Though the democratic peace theory was first criticized for being inaccurate in its claim that democracy promotes peace and as such democracies do not conflict with each other, trends, statistical data, reports have suggested and proved that the democratic peace theory is in fact valid in its claim. Over the years, having been refined, developed and amended, it is now most significant in explaining modern politics and it is easy to accept that there is indeed a lot of truth in the stance that democracy encourages peace. The democratic peace theory is a concept that is largely influenced by the likes of Immanuel Kant, Wilson Woodrow and Thomas Paine.
The UN has made strides toward and continues to fight for world peace, but this however is not the only function of the agency. Environmental protection, Human rights, health and medical research, alleviation of poverty and economic development, emergency and disaster relief, and labor and workers' rights are just a sample of what the UN continues to battle as the year 2000 approaches.