Beyond the Pearson model

Marching Orders
How Canada abandoned peacekeeping – and why the UN needs us now more than ever

Beyond the Pearson model

Despite the far-reaching impact of the UN’s peacekeeping program, many people harbour misconceptions about modern peacekeeping. Opponents of peacekeeping frequently qualify their remarks by referring to the “Pearson model,” named for former Canadian prime minister Lester Pearson, harking back to the missions where lightly armed international troops patrolled a buffer zone between previously warring parties while a ceasefire agreement could be turned into a permanent peace agreement.

In fact, peacekeeping has evolved significantly over the years, and the term is now used to describe a range of interventions, spanning from the prevention of civil wars to the promotion of nation-building, all being conducted under the auspices of the UN’s Department of Peacekeeping Operations.

Modern multi-dimensional peacekeeping operations may be authorized under Chapter VI and Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The most important distinguishing feature of these operations is that they are put in place to implement a peace process, but, as the UN points out, they are not a substitute for a peace process. The military is only one component of a comprehensive political, diplomatic, humanitarian, and economic effort. The objectives of these missions include supporting civilian and non-governmental organizations in the provision of humanitarian aid, the organization and protection of elections, the supervision of government functions, the disarmament and demobilization of large number of parties, the repatriation and rehabilitation of refugees, the protection of safe areas, restoration of national government and institutions, and other missions.

Peacekeeping has evolved greatly since the early days of “Pearsonian” peacekeeping. Today, most peacekeeping missions contain “enforcement” elements because they are authorized under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which allows for the use of force where necessary to implement the UN mandate. These “robust” missions stand in stark contrast to the more traditional form of lightly armed peacekeepers, which were authorized under Chapter VI of the UN Charter.

Still, it is important to note that UN forces consult with the parties involved, before intervening. The UN, on the one hand, does not want to become a party to the conflict but, on the other, needs to have the capacity to respond effectively to renegade forces on the ground and to protect civilians in imminent danger.

The UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations supports the notion that peacekeeping has had to adapt to changing circumstances:

Under-resourced, under-sized peacekeeping operations with inadequate rules of engagement proved to be ill suited for contemporary post-conflict situations, in which armed factions often remained active in the period following civil wars. In addition to targeting and abusing civilians, these groups have also attacked UN peacekeepers. Aware of the dangers of deploying peacekeepers in situations where there is no real peace to keep, the Security Council now provides, when it deems necessary, UN peacekeeping operations with more “robust” mandates . . . .

These mandates allow and in fact require peacekeepers to “use all necessary means” to protect civilians, prevent violence against UN staff and personnel and deter armed elements from ignoring peace agreements. Currently, UN missions in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Liberia, Kosovo, Burundi, Haiti and Côte d’Ivoire operate under Chapter VII mandates . . . .

The Secretary-General has repeatedly stressed, however, that this new approach should not be interpreted as a means of turning the UN into a war-fighting machine, and that the use of force should always be seen as a last resort.28

As Bruce Jones points out, UN peacekeeping has successfully evolved over the years, managing to help mediate armed conflict, even in the midst of more complex and violent circumstances:

This boom in UN peacekeeping, although obscured by the war on terrorism, is saving lives and allowing people emerging from war to choose their political futures. In 2005, the United Nations oversaw or assisted elections and referendums in various countries, affecting the lives of more than 100 million people, and it has proved adept at stabilizing small trouble spots such as Timor and Sierra Leone.29

The United Nations’ current mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo is a good example of its new, robust approach to peacekeeping. The country, formerly known as Zaire, has been gripped by war since 1990. According to Project Ploughshares’ Armed Conflicts Report for 2005, estimated deaths in this current phase of fighting amount to 350,000 as a direct result of armed conflict, but malnutrition and disease brought on by the war has claimed another 3.4 million people.30

The war is fuelled by ethnic violence and competition for natural resources such as diamonds and gold. Neighbouring states have also sent troops into the DRC, and arms have flowed from Europe, Asia and the United States. The United Nations established MONUC (United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo) in 1999 to help enforce a peace agreement. By 2003 foreign troops had left, but stubborn fighting continues within and between rebel groups.

Today, there are more than 16,600 international troops in the DRC, the lion’s share provided by India (4,349), Pakistan (3,560), Bangladesh (1,351), Uruguay (1,324), South Africa (1,183) and Nepal (1,052). These developing countries are providing the backbone of a peacekeeping mission with an annual cost of more than $1 billion per year – one of the largest UN peacekeeping operation ever in terms of troops and dollars. A 1,000-strong European Union force, led by its main contributor, Germany, augments the UN force.

This year, the UN authorized several large-scale military operations, which included the use of attack helicopters, against certain rebel groups in the DRC. Nearly 100 peacekeepers have been killed since 1999, but the mission has allowed the DRC to hold its first free elections in 40 years. It is hoped that this will help bring to an end one of Africa’s bloodiest conflicts.

« previous | next »

SECTIONS