Whether or not the United Nations peacekeeping forces need support from major powers remain a topic of debate. Nevertheless, the United Nations Security Council has the mandate through a joint action to uphold intercontinental tranquility and security via the Charter of the United Nations. Consequently, Security Council has the duty of authorizing all peace keeping missions after the approval of the international community. In addition, UN peace keeping must also receive approval via the Security Council. I disagree to the question of whether or not this process requires support from major powers. My reasons are numerous, and some are hereunder.
According to the United Nations, peacekeeping is the act of providing assistance to countries suffering from internal aggression in realization of peace. “This help comes in numerous ways, which include electoral support, fiscal and public growth, power-sharing arrangements, rule of law strengthening and creation of measures that promote confidence-building in war torn countries” (Marrack, 1993). One of the reasons that make me believe that this process does not require support is because some of the peacekeeping powers focus of their self-interest. They are insincere and they pursue the peacekeeping mission to increase their own worldwide supremacy and stature. Some of the principal arms suppliers include Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, United States, and Italy, which faces criticism for selling weapons in the process of peace keeping. Some people contend that the peacekeeping is the answer to paternalistic ideals that existed in colonialism.Want an expert to write a paper for you Talk to an operator now
Some authors, among which is Virginia (2004), argued that the “UN’s global vision is primarily responsible for colonial violence all over the globe.” It is also potentially harmful for the troops involved in peacekeeping missions. Another reason for being against the peacekeeping process is because of stress. Many former peacekeepers, among which is the Canadian general Dallaire, attempted to commit suicide severally. Many peacekeepers have lamented that they suffer from attacks and humiliation at work through these powerful nations. Accordingly, many critics portend that the peacekeeping process is instrumental and, at the same time, potentially harmful to individual military participation. The critics believe that participation or assistance from the greatest power is likely to destroy the troops’ combat ability.
In addition, there are long-term problems associated with linking considerable powers because of their conflict of interests. This usually results to most peacekeeping missions being left unresolved. In most instances, peacekeeping through the considerable powers is likely to assist in maintaining unstable status quo that is likely to collapse eventually. Additionally, “This process in most parts has failed since the diplomats sent to numerous countries divert their attention to serve political interest of these countries” (Oldrich, 2006). Cultural differences are another issue that peacekeeping nations face.
In conclusion, the process of peacekeeping has numerous challenges ranging from conflict of interest, cultural incompatibilities and other issues that affect the peacekeeping troops. Major Powers have been influential in the process of peacekeeping through assisting or selling weapons that, in turn, affects the troops’ efforts.