Military Involvement in Peace Operations
In this presentation, Visualising Peace student Teddy Henderson discusses some of the research she has been doing into the logistical, ideological and moral challenges connected to military involvement in peacebuilding. Among other topics, she reflects on the factors (such as troop diversity and levels of training) that can make military involvement go better or worse; and she considers military effectiveness in both conflict prevention and reconciliation. Below the video, you can find a summary of the publications she discusses. These are also available in our Visualising Peace Library.
Can Soldiers Build Peace? A Human Science Approach to Understanding Canadian Soldiers’ Experiences in Peace Operations Deployments, Creary, Patlee. Peace Research 50, no. 1 (2018): 27–52. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44873802.
Using the study of soldiers’ lived experiences to improve the effectiveness of military peace operations. This study utilises hermeneutic phenomenology, which explores how individual narratives and experience of the world impact choices. The lived experiences and stories of the soldiers’ sheds light on their attitudes towards peacebuilding, and some of their informal peacebuilding roles. Interactions with locals whilst deployed led to the humanisation of civilians and suggested that the soldiers carry out informal third-party peacebuilding functions that require multiple skills. However, many of the soldiers retain their warrior-like identity, and reject the peacekeeper, constabulary-like, identity that is required on peace operations. Instead, their explanation of the human-centric skills utilised in interactions with locals was due to military professionalism. The success of military peacekeeping intervention depends on a positive perception by the local population, so formalising a peacekeeper identity, and encouraging positive interaction with the community may be an important inclusion in the scope of operations.
Better peacekeepers, better protection? Troop quality of United Nations peace operations and violence against civilians, Haass, Felix, and Nadine Ansorg. Journal of Peace Research 55, no. 6 (2018): 742–58. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48567947.
Using statistical analyses, the study finds that higher quality and better equipped troops are better able to protect civilians from harm in internal conflict, and one-sided violence. This is due to a range of factors including better training, equipment, intelligence and diplomatic support. Protecting civilians requires monitoring whether peace agreements are being followed and holding persecutors accountable. Also, the strength of UN troops helps to prevent and deter violence against civilians more effectively. This study shows that troop quality, as well as troop diversity and size, contribute to mission success and should be a key consideration in mission planning.
Is there a role for the military in peacebuilding? Andrew Rigby, CCTS Review, 32 (2006). URL: https://rc-services-assets.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/review32.pdf
Review of a seminar on the titled topic with three speakers from research and military backgrounds.
The first article considers the assigned role of military intervention in intra-state conflicts, as well as the realised impact. Rigby establishes that while he holds pacifist values, the military currently has a role in post-conflict peacebuilding around the world, and if the military is to be involved, then best practise should be developed. The scope of military action in the peacebuilding process is mostly limited to securitisation and enforcing ceasefires, and the author argues that perhaps this could be done by an unarmed force. The author also observes that soldiers are trained to protect civilians from violent threat, but not in monitoring ceasefires or policing which is required in post-conflict peacebuilding.
The second article is titled: ‘Getting to No’, and distinguishes between military involvement in peacekeeping, peace enforcement, and peace building, while accepting that the distinction between the terms have become blurred. Whether the role of the military could be taken over by an unarmed alternative is considered in these three circumstances, and military action as a last resort is emphasised. Although the benefits and role of the military in stabilisation and reducing violence in peacekeeping missions is accepted, the civilianisation of peacekeeping as far as possible is argued.
‘Carry Gentle Peace’: an analysis of modern post conflict dynamics is the third article put forward for the seminar which is authored by a member of the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst. This discusses conflict prevention, coercive diplomacy, and cooperation between actors in the post conflict environment. Goodwin also considers the expectations on troops to carry out multiple roles as soldier/diplomats in peacekeeping operations.
The military role in reconciliation, Major Terrence H. Buckeye, School of Advanced Military Studies (2010). URL: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA522693.pdf
This extensive monograph investigates how reconciliation is perceived by the military as well as to what extent the military is and should be involved in reconciliation, with US stability operations being the primary focus of study. The understanding of reconciliation by the US government is found to be ambiguous, with recommendations for an improved definition to provide clarity on how the military fits into this process. The author criticises the role of the military as “armed reconcilers”, forcing a society to reconcile. Instead, the military’s role is in securitisation and stabilisation, and is only effective in facilitating, not forcing, reconciliation between groups.
Understand to prevent: The military contribution to the prevention of violent conflict, MCDC (2014). URL: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f746540f0b6230268f987/20150430-U2P_Main_Web_B5.pdf
This document was made as a collaboration between 23 nations, in response to growing uncertainty about the effectiveness of intervention in post-conflict transformation. The document has two parts, the first is a collection of extensive foundation studies into conflict, violence, and prevention. The second is the development of the Understand to Prevent concept which outlines how the military could be involved in prevention operations. The proposed extension of the role for military forces in prevention would utilise existing military skills as well as proposing the development of more human-centric skills to assist in security operations before the outbreak of violent conflict. In the understand to prevent concept, the military would form a part of a Comprehensive Contact Team that coordinates the different actors in violent conflict prevention. The proposed stages of prevention that the military would be involved in are understand, engage, act and endure and assess. I question whether this role could be undertaken by a non-military group, especially if it requires more human-centric skills.