Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, July 6, 1993 TAG: 9307070420
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-4 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: DAVID J. LOFGREN
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Like war and politics, peacekeeping is not an exact science, but there are some basic fundamentals:
Peace is not just an absence of war, it is a condition of security where even the threat of conflict is minimal.
Peacekeepers do not keep a peace, they actually help maintain a truce. Peacekeepers ("trucekeepers") are sent to areas where belligerents have mutually agreed to a truce and the presence of an outside military force. Peacekeepers serve as a buffer between the belligerents, may conduct humanitarian and other peaceful duties and are lightly armed and use force only in self-defense.
"Peacemakers" are not soldiers but politicians and diplomats who should pursue resolution of social, economic or other causes of conflict.
Phillips may be right to suggest that the warring parties in Bosnia need to be forcibly subdued. However, a large, heavily armed, joint service force would be needed. This is not a mission for peacekeepers and it's wrong to label forces used in this type of military operation as "peacemaking troops."
He is right that a dangerous precedent may be set. However, it is not a lack of force by peacekeepers that is the danger; it is the misuse of peacekeepers by requiring them to use greater force. Before U.S. troops become casualties of ignorance, our leaders and the media need to do some homework on the very important terms and principles of peacekeeping and peacemaking.
Reporters and leaders may feel this is all a case of semantics, but the impact is great for lightly armed peacekeepers who may be ordered to fight a much stronger force and "make peace."
Three points to remember when reporting on peacekeeping:
Peacekeeping forces must be impartial. To be effective, they must be trusted by all belligerents, and impartiality is essential to trust. For this reason, U.S. forces did not participate in most United Nations' peacekeeping until recently. (Our involvement in Korea was not peacekeeping.)
Forces that impose a truce (Phillips' "peacemaking troops") are not as effective as peacekeepers (actually trucekeepers) because belligerents don't trust them to be impartial. Using force usually means taking sides, which is why U.S. peacekeepers failed in Lebanon in 1982, after siding with the Christian militia.
Peacekeepers are actually hostages as they depend on the good behavior of the belligerents to stay safe. Diplomats on all sides watch for harm to the peacekeepers while negotiating for a place of power in the peacemaking process (image of the "good guy vs. the bad guy"). As long as belligerents fear the prospect of being the bad guy, peacekeepers are fairly safe. When peacekeepers attack, their "hostage" status and their safety is in jeopardy.
The June 28 editorial regarding U.N. peacekeeping ("Be ready for the next Bosnia") was excellent and very much on target. Unfortunately, what you state has been said by others for many years with little progress. Wheels of international bureaucracy seem to grind even slower than our national system.
The editorial does, however, reinforce the major point of my letter concerning the importance of properly understanding the basic principles of peacekeeping. Three items from the editorial:
The term "peace" is confused with "truce."
"Peacemaking" is implied as military action, when it is really a diplomatic activity.
You describe "peace-enforcement" as a war preventive action, but this is confusing. Again, the definition of peace is needed. Military action to prevent a conflict is "intervention" (a valid term in military doctrine). Interventions may be conducted without the consent of the potential belligerents and may have a variety of goals (for example, in Grenada and Panama).
Another role for the United Nations to help preserve peace is "treatykeeping." This term covers the activity that may follow a negotiated peace treaty and includes confidence-building between former belligerents. The mission of the Multinational Force and Observers in Sinai, Egypt, is the best example of treatykeeping. Interestingly, the United States is the MFO's major sponsor and force contributor, but it is not a United Nations activity.
David J. Lofgren is a retired Army colonel who has served with the Multinational Force and Observers peacekeeping operation in the Middle East.
by CNB