Today is United Nations Day. Since 1987, the number and ambition of United Nations peace operations have multiplied dramatically. Daniel Philpott, associate professor of political science, and co-editor of a multi-volume series on strategic peacebuilding (Oxford University Press) reflects on the "UN revolution."
How successful has UN peacekeeping been recently?
I'd say it's mixed. Rwanda was a clear failure. Cambodia collapsed again into dictatorship only a few years after its UN operation took place. Up to half of contemporary conflicts relapse into violence within 15 years. Kosovo can be broadly considered a success, but there’s doubt about the region’s stability, especially once international forces leave.
Haven’t UN peace operations been effective in places like Sierra Leone and Guatemala?
There's no doubt that the UN is important, even crucial to peacebuilding in many sites. But it depends on how we envision peace. There's the "negative peace" that occurs when the guns stop firing. And there's the "positive peace" in which there is political and economic justice and constructive relationships at all levels of society. On that front, there's a long way to go.
What lessons have we and the UN learned?
Traditional peacebuilding is no longer enough. Sustainable peace requires many actors— not only the UN, national governments, and rebel factions, but also ethnic groups, local and regional organizations, the International Criminal Court, relief agencies, and religious leaders. What happens at the state and UN level will not be successful in the long term without the influence and integration of these other sectors. The good news is that the UN is coming to recognize the importance of this multiplicity in peacebuilding. A new UN Peacebuilding Commission will, for the first time, bring together all the major actors in a conflict situation to determine a long-term, sustainable peacebuilding strategy.
