“
UK Prime Minister Kir Starmer said London is ready to send troops if necessary to ensure security. Previously, France made similar statements. Although Emmanuel Macron recently commented that the land troops did not mean. At the same time, a number of other European countries consider these discussions premature. So does it make sense to hope for an effective peacekeeping mission in Ukraine? It is currently more like a purely political game with rates. Moreover, the topic of peacekeepers is constantly controversy. After all, they can be both an effective tool for the end of the conflict and to promote the frost. To understand what to expect from a possible mission in Ukraine, you need to understand the essence of peacekeeping operations, their types and real examples.
Peacekeeping missions are generally aimed at resolving armed conflicts, protecting civilians or supporting state institutions during the transition period. In their modern sense, they emerged after the Second World War. When the UN was founded in 1945, one of the main goals of the organization was to maintain international peace and security. And peacekeeping missions have become one of these mechanisms.
Advertising:
In 1948, after the UN Security Council resolution 50, the UN was established to monitor the fulfillment of the conditions of the truce (UNTSO). It consisted of military observers who had to control the truce in the Middle East. Their main task was to prevent escalation of conflict through monitoring the situation and interaction between the parties. UN military observers remain there to this day.
Currently, peacekeeping operations are an important tool for international security, although their effectiveness is often doubtful and depends on political will and mandate. Modern peacekeeping missions can exist not only under the auspices of the UN but also other organizations (NATO, EU, African Union) or be created within the coalitions of individual states. But the key principle of peacekeeping missions remains an international mandate. In other cases, such participation can be perceived as direct intervention in conflict.
In general, peacekeeping missions are different and perform different functions – some consist only of observers who monitor the implementation of arrangements, others – provide for the placement of a military contingent to prevent combat actions.
Historical examples of peacekeeping missions One of the most painful historical examples is the peacekeeping mission in Rwanda (1993), whose mandate was powerless before international crimes, including genocide.
UNMIR peacekeeping mission (UNAMIR) was created to monitor the implementation of a peace agreement between the government and the Randa Patriotic Front. Its task was to monitor the truce and help in shaping the new government. However, in April 1994, the situation changed: after the murder of the President of the country of Zhuwenal, the Tutsi genocide began, during which about 800,000 people were killed. UN peacekeepers who had a limited mandate could not interfere with the events and protect civilians. The UN leadership did not recognize the scale of the tragedy for a long time, and only a few months later, when most of the murders had already occurred, it sent additional forces.
Moreover, in some cases, peacekeepers left the terrain, even when massacres continued. One of the most famous episodes occurred at a technical school in Cigal, where hundreds of people found a temporary shelter under the protection of peacekeepers. However, after the military left this place, almost everyone who was hiding there was killed. The human rights community still has reasonable questions to France and Belgium related to this mission.
Therefore, without the adequate mandate and political will of the international community, even the presence of peacekeepers, unfortunately, does not save the civilian population.
Another instructive example for us is the Balkans, where during the UN war she sent an UNPROFOR mission to protect the civilian population. However, in July 1995, the Bosnian Serbs attacked the city of Srebrenica, which was protected by “blue helmets”. Peacekeepers did not receive permission to use force and were forced to retreat. This led to the murder of more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslims – an act later recognized as genocide. Weak mandate and lack of political support from the international community have turned peacekeepers into powerless witnesses of mass murders. And in the end, as we remember, it all ended with a political decision on military intervention.
And, of course, one cannot but mention the experience of Georgia, where the peacekeeping mission has been in operation since 1993, but ceased to exist after escalation and Russian aggression. After a conflict in Abkhazia, the UN sent a mission to observe in Georgia (UNOMIG) to monitor the ceasefire. However, in 2008, Russia launched a war against Georgia, recognized the “independence” of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and then blocked the continuation of the UNOMIG mandate in the UN Security Council. Therefore, if one of the parties to the conflict is vetoed in international organizations, the peacekeeping mission will not be effective.
Among other peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Missco is one of the largest UN operations. It is deployed for humanitarian aid to the local population and is forced to fight numerous armed groups that terrorize the civilian population. That is, it is a UN peacekeeping mission that is involved in active fighting. In 2013, the UN Combat Squad was created in the DRC, which had the right to use the power to eliminate the rebels. Now the situation in the DRC has aggravated again, so we carefully follow the activities of the UN mission.
It is also important to take into account the experience of the UN peacekeeping missions in Somal in 1992-1995, which became one of the most complex and most controversial in the history of peacekeeping. In the early 1990s, Somali plunged into a deep political crisis. After the overthrow of the dictator, Mohammed Siad Barre in 1991, various armed groups began to fight for power. This caused a humanitarian catastrophe – a mass famine, thousands of dead, millions of refugees and collapse of state institutions. The UN decided to intervene to stabilize the situation and provide humanitarian aid. However, peacekeepers did not have enough strength to control the situation, and the armed groups hindered their activity. The fighting between the local warlords continued, which made humanitarian aid delivery.
In March 1993, the mission was reformed to establish peace between warring groups. This mission was much larger and included about 28,000 servicemen from different countries. However, the goals have never been achieved. Somalia is currently an unstable country, although African peacekeeping contingents, such as Amisom (the Mission of the African Union in Somal), continue to operate there.
Is a peacekeeping mission possible in Ukraine? It is now for me looks utopian. In 2015, Ukraine has officially addressed the UN with a proposal to deploy a peacekeeping mission in the temporarily occupied territories of Donetsk and Luhansk regions. The main purpose of this appeal was to create safe conditions for termination of hostilities, restoration of Ukraine’s control over the border and ensuring stability in the region.
Then, despite numerous diplomatic efforts, the issue of the introduction of the UN peacekeepers into the conflict zone remained unresolved due to the lack of consensus in the UN Security Council, where Russia as a permanent member has the right to veto. Therefore, if you look at the question realistically, our partners are unlikely to agree to implement this idea without the consent of both us and Russia. At least because of the unwillingness of potential escalation. And Russia has already stated that the introduction of peacekeepers from NATO countries. In addition, no one indicates that the mission is possible in the current circumstances. It is considered only as a stage of settlement.
At the same time, it is important to understand that for at least the conditional success of peacekeeping missions, they must have a clear mandate (the same UN Council), which includes the right to use the force to protect the civilian population. And if some EU countries still make a decision on a peacekeeping mission, they will have to consult with NATO countries. In the end, there should be political will of the participating countries, without which no mission will be effective.
Gunduz Mammades
A column is a material that reflects the author’s point of view. The text of the column does not claim the objectivity and comprehensive coverage of the topic that rises in it. The editorial board of “Ukrainian Truth” is not responsible for the accuracy and interpretation of the information provided and plays only the role of the carrier. The view of the UP editorial board may not coincide with the point of view of the author of the column.
”, – WRITE: www.pravda.com.ua
UK Prime Minister Kir Starmer said London is ready to send troops if necessary to ensure security. Previously, France made similar statements. Although Emmanuel Macron recently commented that the land troops did not mean. At the same time, a number of other European countries consider these discussions premature. So does it make sense to hope for an effective peacekeeping mission in Ukraine? It is currently more like a purely political game with rates. Moreover, the topic of peacekeepers is constantly controversy. After all, they can be both an effective tool for the end of the conflict and to promote the frost. To understand what to expect from a possible mission in Ukraine, you need to understand the essence of peacekeeping operations, their types and real examples.
Peacekeeping missions are generally aimed at resolving armed conflicts, protecting civilians or supporting state institutions during the transition period. In their modern sense, they emerged after the Second World War. When the UN was founded in 1945, one of the main goals of the organization was to maintain international peace and security. And peacekeeping missions have become one of these mechanisms.
Advertising:
In 1948, after the UN Security Council resolution 50, the UN was established to monitor the fulfillment of the conditions of the truce (UNTSO). It consisted of military observers who had to control the truce in the Middle East. Their main task was to prevent escalation of conflict through monitoring the situation and interaction between the parties. UN military observers remain there to this day.
Currently, peacekeeping operations are an important tool for international security, although their effectiveness is often doubtful and depends on political will and mandate. Modern peacekeeping missions can exist not only under the auspices of the UN but also other organizations (NATO, EU, African Union) or be created within the coalitions of individual states. But the key principle of peacekeeping missions remains an international mandate. In other cases, such participation can be perceived as direct intervention in conflict.
In general, peacekeeping missions are different and perform different functions – some consist only of observers who monitor the implementation of arrangements, others – provide for the placement of a military contingent to prevent combat actions.
Historical examples of peacekeeping missions One of the most painful historical examples is the peacekeeping mission in Rwanda (1993), whose mandate was powerless before international crimes, including genocide.
UNMIR peacekeeping mission (UNAMIR) was created to monitor the implementation of a peace agreement between the government and the Randa Patriotic Front. Its task was to monitor the truce and help in shaping the new government. However, in April 1994, the situation changed: after the murder of the President of the country of Zhuwenal, the Tutsi genocide began, during which about 800,000 people were killed. UN peacekeepers who had a limited mandate could not interfere with the events and protect civilians. The UN leadership did not recognize the scale of the tragedy for a long time, and only a few months later, when most of the murders had already occurred, it sent additional forces.
Moreover, in some cases, peacekeepers left the terrain, even when massacres continued. One of the most famous episodes occurred at a technical school in Cigal, where hundreds of people found a temporary shelter under the protection of peacekeepers. However, after the military left this place, almost everyone who was hiding there was killed. The human rights community still has reasonable questions to France and Belgium related to this mission.
Therefore, without the adequate mandate and political will of the international community, even the presence of peacekeepers, unfortunately, does not save the civilian population.
Another instructive example for us is the Balkans, where during the UN war she sent an UNPROFOR mission to protect the civilian population. However, in July 1995, the Bosnian Serbs attacked the city of Srebrenica, which was protected by “blue helmets”. Peacekeepers did not receive permission to use force and were forced to retreat. This led to the murder of more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslims – an act later recognized as genocide. Weak mandate and lack of political support from the international community have turned peacekeepers into powerless witnesses of mass murders. And in the end, as we remember, it all ended with a political decision on military intervention.
And, of course, one cannot but mention the experience of Georgia, where the peacekeeping mission has been in operation since 1993, but ceased to exist after escalation and Russian aggression. After a conflict in Abkhazia, the UN sent a mission to observe in Georgia (UNOMIG) to monitor the ceasefire. However, in 2008, Russia launched a war against Georgia, recognized the “independence” of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and then blocked the continuation of the UNOMIG mandate in the UN Security Council. Therefore, if one of the parties to the conflict is vetoed in international organizations, the peacekeeping mission will not be effective.
IN Irizer among other peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Missco is one of the largest UN operations. It is deployed for humanitarian aid to the local population and is forced to fight numerous armed groups that terrorize the civilian population. That is, it is a UN peacekeeping mission that is involved in active fighting. In 2013, the UN Combat Squad was created in the DRC, which had the right to use the power to eliminate the rebels. Now the situation in the DRC has aggravated again, so we carefully follow the activities of the UN mission.
It is also important to take into account the experience of the UN peacekeeping missions in Somal in 1992-1995, which became one of the most complex and most controversial in the history of peacekeeping. In the early 1990s, Somali plunged into a deep political crisis. After the overthrow of the dictator, Mohammed Siad Barre in 1991, various armed groups began to fight for power. This caused a humanitarian catastrophe – a mass famine, thousands of dead, millions of refugees and collapse of state institutions. The UN decided to intervene to stabilize the situation and provide humanitarian aid. However, peacekeepers did not have enough strength to control the situation, and the armed groups hindered their activity. The fighting between the local warlords continued, which made humanitarian aid delivery.
In March 1993, the mission was reformed to establish peace between warring groups. This mission was much larger and included about 28,000 servicemen from different countries. However, the goals have never been achieved. Somalia is currently an unstable country, although African peacekeeping contingents, such as Amisom (the Mission of the African Union in Somal), continue to operate there.
Is a peacekeeping mission possible in Ukraine? For me, it looks utopian now. In 2015, Ukraine has officially addressed the UN with a proposal to deploy a peacekeeping mission in the temporarily occupied territories of Donetsk and Luhansk regions. The main purpose of this appeal was to create safe conditions for termination of hostilities, restoration of Ukraine’s control over the border and ensuring stability in the region.
Then, despite numerous diplomatic efforts, the issue of the introduction of the UN peacekeepers into the conflict zone remained unresolved due to the lack of consensus in the UN Security Council, where Russia as a permanent member has the right to veto. Therefore, if you look at the question realistically, our partners are unlikely to agree to implement this idea without the consent of both us and Russia. At least because of the unwillingness of potential escalation. And Russia has already stated that the introduction of peacekeepers from NATO countries. In addition, no one indicates that the mission is possible in the current circumstances. It is considered only as a stage of settlement.
At the same time, it is important to understand that for at least the conditional success of peacekeeping missions, they must have a clear mandate (the same UN Council), which includes the right to use the force to protect the civilian population. And if some EU countries still make a decision on a peacekeeping mission, they will have to consult with NATO countries. In the end, there should be political will of the participating countries, without which no mission will be effective.
Gunduz Mammades
A column is a material that reflects the author’s point of view. The text of the column does not claim the objectivity and comprehensive coverage of the topic that rises in it. The editorial board of “Ukrainian Truth” is not responsible for the accuracy and interpretation of the information provided and plays only the role of the carrier. The view of the UP editorial board may not coincide with the point of view of the author of the column.