US Role in PeacekeepingArnav Joshi
|
|
Keeping peace is a joint effort among various entities. If one entity was responsible for all the peacekeeping across the globe, the neutrality of that entity needs to be established before giving it this responsibility. If the United States were to be the world’s peacekeeper, will it be neutral or will the ideals of this country overshadow the issues of the warring nations?
According to the mandate for the United Nations, member nations are expected to uphold basic principles of the organization. From time to time, it sends peacekeeping forces formed with soldiers from member nations to war-torn areas. The member nations also contribute funds to the peacekeeping efforts. The United States is responsible for 22% of the peacekeeping budget but is unwilling to pay since it cannot control how the money is spent. Being a non-governing entity, UN neutrality is not questioned but the US prefers unilateral peacekeeping based on its own principles and agenda in the warring regions.
The United States sees several advantages in independent peacekeeping. The US believes that the UN peacekeeping forces are not always held accountable if they violate the rights of civilians that they are protecting. In a joint peacekeeping force, the US cannot exercise control over violation of human rights. So, instead of contributing to a multinational fund, the US might prefer to run its own peacekeeping operation in order to closely monitor the force as well as the money spent. US forces also have better equipment to deal with warring forces, thereby reducing casualties of their peacekeepers. In a unilateral peacekeeping force, US troops can be mobilized much faster than the 6 to 8 months required to mobilize UN peacekeepers. These advantages make a strong case for an independent US peacekeeping force.
There are, however, downsides to unilateral peacekeeping by the US. Other nations see the US unilateral peacekeeping forces as a US business opportunity for rebuilding areas affected by war, more than for peacekeeping. Several nations do not like the prolonged presence of US troops, once they establish a base in a country. Progressive social ideas of the US are not always welcome, putting the local population in danger if they follow them. Independent peacekeeping can also go against the US since the country could become forced to negotiate with militants in order to protect its troops from getting killed or kidnapped, since they are clearly identified as US troops. The US also loses the diplomatic advantage in the region that a multinational peacekeeping force would give and the diplomatic advantage of cooperating and strengthening relations with allies.
With the amount and quality of resources available, the strength of the US military is more useful in wars against direct enemies of the country. Contributing to a UN peacekeeping force for nation-building activities is the best option to minimize impact on the US military and to build diplomatic relations with allies and emerging governments. With its economic power, the US is in a diplomatically strong position to negotiate. Therefore, the US should be more active in joint peacekeeping forces to maintain political neutrality and use economic and diplomatic strength as a negotiating tool during peacekeeping operations.
Citations:
Holshek, Christopher. “America Needs Peacekeeping Missions More than Ever.” Foreign Policy, 10 Nov. 2015,
https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/10/america-needs-peacekeeping-missions-more-than-ever/.
“How the Biden Administration Can Revive U.N. Peacekeeping.” United States Institute of Peace, 13 Apr. 2021, https://www.usip.org/publications/2021/02/how-biden-administration-can-revive-un-peacekeeping.
“Military Peacekeeping.” United Nations, United Nations, https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/military
Nichols, Michelle. “U.N. Members Owe $2 Billion in Debt to Peacekeeping, U.S. Owes a Third.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 17 Jan. 2019, https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/militarypeacekeeping.un.org/en/military
According to the mandate for the United Nations, member nations are expected to uphold basic principles of the organization. From time to time, it sends peacekeeping forces formed with soldiers from member nations to war-torn areas. The member nations also contribute funds to the peacekeeping efforts. The United States is responsible for 22% of the peacekeeping budget but is unwilling to pay since it cannot control how the money is spent. Being a non-governing entity, UN neutrality is not questioned but the US prefers unilateral peacekeeping based on its own principles and agenda in the warring regions.
The United States sees several advantages in independent peacekeeping. The US believes that the UN peacekeeping forces are not always held accountable if they violate the rights of civilians that they are protecting. In a joint peacekeeping force, the US cannot exercise control over violation of human rights. So, instead of contributing to a multinational fund, the US might prefer to run its own peacekeeping operation in order to closely monitor the force as well as the money spent. US forces also have better equipment to deal with warring forces, thereby reducing casualties of their peacekeepers. In a unilateral peacekeeping force, US troops can be mobilized much faster than the 6 to 8 months required to mobilize UN peacekeepers. These advantages make a strong case for an independent US peacekeeping force.
There are, however, downsides to unilateral peacekeeping by the US. Other nations see the US unilateral peacekeeping forces as a US business opportunity for rebuilding areas affected by war, more than for peacekeeping. Several nations do not like the prolonged presence of US troops, once they establish a base in a country. Progressive social ideas of the US are not always welcome, putting the local population in danger if they follow them. Independent peacekeeping can also go against the US since the country could become forced to negotiate with militants in order to protect its troops from getting killed or kidnapped, since they are clearly identified as US troops. The US also loses the diplomatic advantage in the region that a multinational peacekeeping force would give and the diplomatic advantage of cooperating and strengthening relations with allies.
With the amount and quality of resources available, the strength of the US military is more useful in wars against direct enemies of the country. Contributing to a UN peacekeeping force for nation-building activities is the best option to minimize impact on the US military and to build diplomatic relations with allies and emerging governments. With its economic power, the US is in a diplomatically strong position to negotiate. Therefore, the US should be more active in joint peacekeeping forces to maintain political neutrality and use economic and diplomatic strength as a negotiating tool during peacekeeping operations.
Citations:
Holshek, Christopher. “America Needs Peacekeeping Missions More than Ever.” Foreign Policy, 10 Nov. 2015,
https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/10/america-needs-peacekeeping-missions-more-than-ever/.
“How the Biden Administration Can Revive U.N. Peacekeeping.” United States Institute of Peace, 13 Apr. 2021, https://www.usip.org/publications/2021/02/how-biden-administration-can-revive-un-peacekeeping.
“Military Peacekeeping.” United Nations, United Nations, https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/military
Nichols, Michelle. “U.N. Members Owe $2 Billion in Debt to Peacekeeping, U.S. Owes a Third.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 17 Jan. 2019, https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/militarypeacekeeping.un.org/en/military
|
Join the CommunityThe United States of America
|
Read Our Stories
|