How have peacekeeping and military intervention evolved since 9/11? This article from Contemporary Politics argues that Western states have become reluctant to engage in the types of humanitarian interventions they undertook in the 1990s. A new model of operations is emerging, lying between traditional United Nations peacekeeping and classical humanitarian intervention. This new generation of peace operations indicates movement towards the view that the international community has a duty to intervene in internal conflicts and crises.
Humanitarian interventions of the 1990s can be distinguished from traditional peacekeeping (as practised by the UN during the Cold War) in four key areas: the type of conflict situation into which forces were deployed; consent; the approach to the use of force; and the countries that were the main troop contributors.
- Conflict situation: Traditional peacekeeping operations were deployed post-conflict, with a ceasefire or broad peace agreement in place. Humanitarian interventions of the 1990s took place amidst ongoing violence. Operations in the 2000s, including recent UN missions, have been in ambiguous situations between the two.
- Consent: Agreement from government and other conflict parties has been a prerequisite for traditional UN peacekeeping. In contrast, humanitarian intervention during the 1990s involved action taken without consent from government and others. New peace operations are being deployed with coerced or partial consent.
- Use of force: The non-use of military force was a central feature of traditional peacekeeping. Humanitarian interventions of the 1990s used military force to protect populations, deliver aid, disarm factions and try to end conflict. New operations involve a mix of non-forceful and forceful activities.
- Troop contributors: Up to the 1990s, the primary contributors to UN peacekeeping operations were developing countries. Humanitarian interventions of the 1990s were primarily undertaken by Western states. Developing countries are the main troop contributors to new operations, except where Western powers perceive important strategic interests (Iraq and Afghanistan).
These overlapping and contradictory trends show the UN and regional organisations being pushed into a grey area between traditional peacekeeping and classical humanitarian intervention.
- Humanitarian interventions of the 1990s suggested a shift in international norms relating to state sovereignty and military intervention. The post 9/11 period has seen a reversal of that trend, especially in terms of the willingness of Western states to engage in humanitarian intervention.
- UN endorsement of the responsibility to protect and the new generation of peace operations indicate a more complicated situation. The longer-term willingness of Western states to contribute to peace operations remains to be fully tested. It should not be assumed that Western governments will always be reluctant to engage in peacekeeping, nation-building and humanitarian interventions.
- Many of the new generation of peace operations are problematic because of the limited military capabilities of developing states. Given these limitations, there will remain arguments that Western states should be doing more to contribute.
- Humanitarian interventions of the 1990s suggested a shift towards foreign policy and the use of force being based on ethical concerns, not just on narrowly defined national interests. The new politics of peacekeeping and intervention will test how far such a shift is viable.
