Letter: Peacekeeping and peace enforcement
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Richard Dowden's account of his interview with UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali (27 October) raises important questions of principle in respect of peacekeeping operations. It would appear from the account that the only thing that deters the Secretary General from initiating steps for enforcement action in Bosnia is the threat by Britain, France, Spain, Canada and Russia that they would pull out their forces were he to do so.
This challenges the whole concept of peacekeeping as a method for conflict resolution. Peacekeeping, as defined and designed back in 1956 by that great servant of the UN, Dr Ralph Bunche, was intended as an alternative to the enforcement option provided for in Chapter VII of the UN Charter - an impartial and peaceful intervention in a dispute that endangered international peace and security. This concept has proved its worth time and time again.
The Secretary General's comments illustrate the dilemma facing the UN. On the one hand, the US and others believe that peacekeeping in its original context is ineffective and, at best, should be seen as a stepping stone to more dynamic action (peace enforcement). On the other, there is a strong opposition from those countries with much greater experience of peacekeeping operations and that are physically involved, against the use of force, if only for the reason that it would endanger their soldiers.
The only person speaking out loud and clear about the importance and credibility of the principle of peacekeeping is General Sir Michael Rose, Commander of Unprofor. He is under criticism from all sides in the dispute, but he can gain comfort from this in the knowledge that he must therefore be fulfilling his responsibilities with impartiality.
The UN and all its members must recognise that peacekeeping and peace enforcement are two distinct and different operations. Each has its own terms of reference. The Security Council, when defining the mandate, must decide which option to authorise and unequivocally stick with it.
Yours faithfully, MICHAEL HARBOTTLE The Centre for International Peacebuilding Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire 27 October The writer is former Chief of Staff, UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus, 1966-68.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments