Background:

In the complex domain of (UN) conflict management, one hears talk of peace operations, traditional peacekeeping, multi-dimensional peacekeeping, peace enforcement, robust peacekeeping, operations other than war, state building, transitional administration, security sector reform, humanitarian assistance, UN lead operations, operations mounted by regional organizations, etc. The many concepts, terms and acronyms that are used can be overwhelming. However, there is a logic behind the continual expansion of this vocabulary as (1) the violent conflicts to be managed are by nature unpredictable, chaotic, and, therefore, extremely dynamic; and (2) conflict management is pre-eminently shaped by ‘lessons learned’ and ‘best practices’, thus leading to the generation of new ideas and strategies, and, logically, the use of new terminology. Nevertheless, it has become essential to re-think these concepts and re-formulate what is actually meant by the term ‘peacekeeping,’ since clarity of terminology is one of the most important elements in intercultural communication. Furthermore, such clarity may contribute to consistent behavior and, ultimately, to successful action in the field. Therefore, in the context global violent conflict management, people involved in consensus building must constantly ask whether the different communication partners are indeed referring about the same ideas and concepts when they speak.

This workshop will primarily discuss the question of how the idea of peacekeeping is viewed by the Chinese, Russians, Europeans and Americans. This discussion logically leads to a second question, namely: how does the interpretation of peacekeeping affect and influence the policies, doctrines, strategies and tactics of the (permanent) members of the United Nations Security Council.

Aim and Purpose of the Workshop:

The purpose of this workshop is to create a multicultural dialogue on the topic of peacekeeping. For organizational considerations, the workshop is divided into two parts.

In the first part, four presenters will introduce and explain the positions of China, Russia, the United States and Europe on peacekeeping. These presentations (20 minutes each) will focus on three topics:
1) Mission mandate: origin, logic, development
2) Mission creep: What if things go wrong? What reactions in the event of unmitigated suffering and massive human rights violations?
3) Past experiences and future developments

Specifically, the speakers will present the views of the (permanent) members of the United Nations Security Council. They will discuss how peacekeeping is understood (in ideal terms), how the difficult topic of ‘peace enforcement’ is tackled, how peacekeeping has been dealt with in the past, and how the past influences each country’s respective ideas on the future of peacekeeping. In the presentation on the ‘European view,’ the contributions of smaller countries (in contrast to that of the major powers) in the field of peacekeeping will be highlighted. These presentations will provide the framework for the subsequent discussion, scheduled for the second part of the workshop.

In the workshop’s second part, the chairperson will summarize the presentations and thus the stage for the follow-up discussion. The discussion will be organized around the same three topics dealt with during the presentations: (1) theory or mandate; (2) practice or mission creep, and (3) lessons learned; i.e., past experiences and future developments.

A further purpose of this workshop is to give the floor to those practitioners and researchers concerned with the problems related to peacekeeping in the 21st century and, indeed, to create a dialogue amongst the members of the United Nations Security Council. We are asking whether there exists a common ground and, therefore, a common will to manage major violent conflicts in the world. Or rather, does the term ‘peacekeeping’ refer to fundamentally different ideas depending upon the actor? Furthermore, can we identify changing views and new developments in the attitudes of the major players in the peacekeeping field?

Expected Outcome:

The organizers of this workshop plan to summarize the presentations and the follow-up discussion in a concise publication. This publication will be aimed at a range of public figures, including policymakers (military, police and civilian), practitioners, and researchers interested in the broad topic of peace operations.

Recommended Reading:

James Dobbins, Seth G. Jones, Keith Crane, Andrew Rathmell, Brett Steele, Richard Teltschik, Anga Timilsina, The UN’s role in Nation-Building, from the Congo to Iraq, Santa Monica: RAND Cooperation, 2005.

The Challenges Report, Meeting the Challenges of Peace Operations: Cooperation and Coordination, Elanders Gotab, Stockholm, 2005.

The Challenges Report, Challenges of Peace Operations: into the 21 st century, Elanders Gotab, Stockholm, 2002.

United Nations, Report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations, A/55/305-S/2000/809. (The Brahimi Report)

United Nations’ Department of Peacekeeping Operations, Capstone Doctrine for United Nations Peacekeeping Operations-Draft 2.