Defending peacekeeping, going overboard
With a Republican Congress slashing budgets and eyeing UN funding, administration officials and think-tank types have ramped up their defense of UN activities. They should; there’s a lot to be said in defense of the UN and peacekeeping in particular. Unfortunately, there’s a tendency to go too far. I argued recently that certain administration claims ...
With a Republican Congress slashing budgets and eyeing UN funding, administration officials and think-tank types have ramped up their defense of UN activities. They should; there's a lot to be said in defense of the UN and peacekeeping in particular.
With a Republican Congress slashing budgets and eyeing UN funding, administration officials and think-tank types have ramped up their defense of UN activities. They should; there’s a lot to be said in defense of the UN and peacekeeping in particular.
Unfortunately, there’s a tendency to go too far. I argued recently that certain administration claims that peacekeeping saves U.S. lives and money were exaggerated. Outside experts too can fall victim to excess in an otherwise legitimate cause. A case in point is this paragraph from a new Council on Foreign Relations report:
While UN peacekeeping is in need of overarching reforms, it is too easy to forget the essential role it plays in promoting U.S. foreign policy goals. UN peacekeeping missions underpin stability in Lebanon, Haiti, Somalia, and the Indo-Pakistani border region of Kashmir. UN missions are also critical to solidifying American gains after U.S. troops leave; it is UN peacekeepers who have prevented the resurgence of violence in post-conflict areas like the Sinai desert, Bosnia, and Kosovo. In an era where a dwindling number of allies are willing to contribute to international peace and security, the UN is a reliable partner with the United States in many troubled regions–often willing to work alongside, or in lieu of, U.S. soldiers.
Several of these claims are either exaggerated or just wrong. There is of course precious little stability in Somalia, and the peacekeepers at work there are associated with an African Union mission, not a UN force. And UN peacekeepers have not played a significant role in preventing a resurgence of violence in Bosnia and Kosovo. In fact, NATO was forced to pick up after a disastrous UN mission to Bosnia in the mid-1990s. In Kosovo, NATO forces have had the lead since the 1999 military campaign to expel Serb forces (according to the latest UN update, a grand total of eight uniformed UN personnel serve there) .
Those on the Hill attacking the UN often have a very limited understanding of what the organization does. It’s critical that advocates hold themselves to a much higher standard.
David Bosco is a professor at Indiana University’s Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies. He is the author of The Poseidon Project: The Struggle to Govern the World’s Oceans. Twitter: @multilateralist
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
