“My analysis is that stabilization is toxic for UN peacekeeping because the more successfully these operations stabilize, the less incentive ruling elites have for seeking a political settlement. The result is a no peace/no war stalemate, which leaves the UN with no exit path.” Cedric de Coning
Today we launch two pieces on peacekeeping, relating to political settlement and inclusion. In different ways both point to the new global marketplace of political change.
First, in Principled Peacekeeping Works, a guest blog post that synthesises new data and analysis on peacekeeping, Cedric de Coning examines the effectiveness of peacekeeping operations as implementation mechanisms in peace processes. In particular, he notes a shift in peacekeeping in providing a ‘stabilisation’ function, which he argues is a more major departure from existing operations than has been contemplated, with new risks.
Second, in Breaking the Balance? The Impact of Peacekeeping Deployments on Civil–Military Relations, PSRP doctoral student Monalisa Adhikari examines how a shift in UN Peacekeeping forces to using troops from developing countries impacts on the on the domestic politics of troop contributing countries, some of whom will be engaged in their own transitions. She provides a detailed case study of Nepal.
“The UN has not prioritized making peacekeeping deployments conditional on respect for civilian supremacy by the security forces of troop contributing countries. Yet, deploying peacekeepers may bring significant institutional, political and financial benefits to security forces, most notably the military, which directly and indirectly impacts the civil–military relations in troop contributing countries.” Monalisa Adhikari