Mitigating Clash. The UN Political Dictate in Africa

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. The Origin of International Intervention

III. UN Peacekeeping Mission in Somalia

IV. UN Intervention in Eritrean’s and Ethiopian’s Conflict

V. The Role of United Nations in Rwandan Crisis

VI. Conclusion

Works Cited

Introduction

This book discusses issues of political intervention relating to the work of United Nation at mitigating clash and civilian war in the East Africa. The discussion dwelt on the strategic work of United Nation (UN) to prevent incessant ethnic clash, gearing to global intervention. It looks into the greatest conflict in East Africa and its subsequent impact on religious, economic and global political clash. The study turns to study the case in East Africa and the strategic works carried by United Nation (UN) to end the conflicts in the Rwandan and Eritrean and Ethiopian border conflicts. The incessant conflicts and civil war had cause unprecedented and unfortunate political move by the superpowers to intervene in the bloody conflicts of the region.

The Origin of International Intervention

International intervention has come to surface since the end of cold war with tremendous achievement in protecting and safeguarding civilian rights, establishing orders and initiating peacekeeping process. This essay will analyze preliminary ideas on international intervention outlining its comprehensive definitions, types, target, style and nature and discussing some foundational and contemporary works on peacekeeping and conflict management and the background of humanitarian military intervention and peace operation as expertly defined and espoused by scholars of international politics and relation in modern tradition.

1. Definitions

International intervention or interventionism is defined by Robert Higgs and Carl P. Close as “a term for a policy of non-defensive (proactive) activity undertaken by a nation-state, or other geo-political jurisdiction of a lesser or greater nature, to manipulate an economy or society.” (Robert Higgsand Carl P. Close, 2007). It is commonly applied in political term for “significant activity undertaken by a state to influence something not directly under its control.” Other significant application of the term does relate to economic interventionism (a state’s intervention in its own economy), and foreign interventionism (a state's intervention in the affairs of another nation as part of its foreign policy). The intervention of multi-state coalition and military operations is contrary to the concepts of anti-imperialism and self-determination and the presumption against intervention in another nation’s internal affairs. The common term for intervention mostly employed includes foreign intervention, humanitarian aid, peacekeeping process, conflict management, preventive diplomacy and political intervention. A comprehensive theoretical discussion on the term relating to international intervention is clarified below:

1.1. Conflict Management

Conflict management, is supposed to relate to psychological discipline of organizational behavior. Pony (1967) defined conflict as “the process which begins when one party perceives that another has frustrated, or is about to frustrate, some concern of his.” (Kenneth W. Thomas, 1992). Conflicts arise naturally in every aspect of human life. It is a fact of personal and organizational life.

In psychological context, conflict management is acclaimed as a key skill for all successful long-term relationships. Conflict management, in political framework, can be defined as an effort and initiative to interfere and address the escalating conflict of foreign countries, by regulating and addressing adequately the crisis and effectively solving the conflict. On the global scale, the interpersonal conflict and political struggle has been intensifying with the increased of ethnic/racial conflict, international war, economic stagnancy, interstate dispute, and the failure of United Nation (UN), NATO, World League Forum and Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) to undertake their mission impartially.

Conflict resolution styles varied between states and countries, and managing conflicts and disagreement is the central task of maintaining peace, which provide the ultimate testing ground for the nation to constructively resolve conflict and to satisfy their nations’ aspiration positively.

1.2. Military intervention

Military intervention is “the deliberate act of a nation or a group of nations to introduce its military forces into the course of an existing controversy.” (answers.com) [online]. The armed intervention in foreign land has been advanced with such regularity since the end of post-Cold War to promote democracy and safeguard national interest and security. The framework and strategies for military intervention is grounded in seven categories familiar to strategists and policy makers — “national interests, threats, political-military objectives, policy guidance, planning options, resources, and public opinion.” (John M. Collins, 1995). These insights help to underpin decisions to intervene or abstain and to ascertain whether ongoing military operations seem warranted on the targeted regime. According to James Meernik (1996), the readiness of states to wage war and use force against the others is to compel it to become democratic. Although they declare democracy as a goal of the intervention, in majority cases, it does not appear to effectively promote democracy, instead to become a means to attain their political objectives.

Key considerations in the use of combat forces abroad as prescribed by Weinberger recognize the unique and universally applicable rules for decisions about interventions. Weinberger outline six chief considerations in the armed intervention: “the vital US or allied interests; clear intent to win; precise objectives and ways to accomplish them; "reasonable" assurance of public support; military action as a last resort; continual reassessment and adjustments as events unfold.” (James Meernik, 1996). Normally, the US direct national security interest takes precedence over all others. Its vital interest is national survival with sovereignty, territorial integrity, fundamental institutions, and values acceptably intact.

1.3. Peace operation

Peace operation is strategies of preventive diplomacy, peace enforcement and peace building that were developed in stages to prevent, halt and resolve conflict. It is a comprehensive term that covers a wide range of activities, whose primary objective is to create and sustain the conditions necessary for peace to flourish. Peace operations comprise three types of activities: support to diplomacy (peacemaking, peace building, and preventive diplomacy), peacekeeping, and peace enforcement. It includes “traditional peacekeeping as well as peace enforcement activities such as protection of humanitarian assistance, establishment of order and stability, enforcement of sanctions, guarantee and denial of movement, establishment of protected zones, and forcible separation of belligerents.”(Field Manual 100-23, 1994).

In the post-Cold War strategic security environment, peace operations have dramatically increased and intensified. In its first 40 years, the United Nations (UN) has conducted 13 operations, including the great operations in the Congo during the 1960s. Since 1988, and the succeeding years, the number of peace operations has doubly increase into complex operation. The UN’s peacekeeping operation in Cambodia in 1993, marshaled about 22,000 military, police, and civilian personnel from 32 contributing nations, which cost the world community well over $2 billion. The UN-sanctioned peace operation in Somalia, lead by the US special task force [UNITAF]), amassed about 27,000 personnel from 23 contributing nations, which cost $750 million are not new to the Army. Since 1948, peace operations spearheaded by the US have served in many countries, which include the mission of United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization in the Middle East, Lebanon (1958), the Dominican Republic (1965), and the Sinai (1982) that successfully geared many members of a multinational force and observers (MFO).

1.4. Humanitarian intervention

Humanitarian intervention is primarily about protecting entire populations of people, against ethnic cleansing and holding individual elites accountable for such crimes (Michael C.Davis, 2004: 3). J. L. Holzgrefe argued that humanitarian intervention is “the threat or use of force across state borders by a state (or group of states) aimed at preventing or ending widespread and grave violations of the fundamental human rights of individuals other than its own citizens, without the permission of the state within whose territory force is applied.” (L. Holzgrefe, 2003: 18) In his defining analysis, Robert O. Keohane says: “humanitarian intervention” in a room full of philosophers, legal scholars and political scientist is a little bit like crying “fire” in a crowded theatre.” (Robert O. Keohane, 2003: 1) Ferdinand R. Teson, a well-known supporter of intervention policy, defines the humanitarian intervention “as the proportionate international use or threat of military force, undertaken in principle by a liberal government or alliance, aimed at ending tyranny or anarchy, welcomed by the victims, and consistent with the doctrine of double effect.” (Ferdinando R Teson, 2003: 94) Anthony Arend and Robert Beck argued that for an action to count as forcible humanitarian intervention, it must be constrained to ‘protecting fundamental rights’ and should neither have the blessing of the United Nations (UN) nor the consent of the targeted government.”(Arend and Beck, 1996: 46) The fundamental principle of humanitarian act thus should take into accounta humane military operation which is responsible to protect basic humanitarian right of the civilian.

Daniel Rice defined armed humanitarian intervention as “the use of military force by a nation or nations to stop or prevent widespread, systematic human-rights abuses within the sovereign territory of another nation.” (Daniel Rice, 2007) He defended armed humanitarian intervention as morally justified to maintain political stability and world order. Michael Walzer, a just-war theorist, in his broad interpretation of legal and political ramifications of military intervention and the legitimacy of violating borders and sovereignty, argues that armed humanitarian intervention is morally justified, perhaps even required, in response to “massacre, rape, ethnic cleansing, state terrorism, [and] contemporary versions of bastard feudalism, complete with ruthless warlords and lawless bands of armed men.” (Michael Walzer, 2004: 68). He principally defend that it is “morally necessary whenever cruelty and suffering are extreme and no local forces seem capable of putting an end to them.” Walzer pointed out that armed intervention cannot be morally justified to promote “democracy ... or economic justice or ... other social practices and arrangements” that exist in other countries. In his view, it must be limited to ending conduct that “shocks the conscience of humankind.” (Michael Walzer, 2004: 69)

1.5. Peacekeeping Process

Peacekeeping is defined by the United Nations as “a unique and dynamic instruments developed by the Organization as a way to help countries torn by conflictcreate the conditions for lasting peace”. (United Nations, 2005).The operation was financed by the General Assembly as one among a range of activities undertaken by the UN to maintain international peace and security.

Peacekeeping is distinguished from both peacebuilding and peacemaking. United Nations Peacekeeping helps countries worldwide to maintain peace and order. It has proven to be one of the most effective tools of the UN to assist countries navigate the difficult path from conflict to peace.

UN Peacekeeping is guided by three basic principles: Consent of the parties; impartiality; non-use of force except in self-defence and defence of the mandate. The aim of peacekeeping is to reconcile between two conflicting states and to reach final settlement by signing a cease fire. In doing so, peace building can be worked out and the danger of renewed war can be reduced.

The rules of peacekeeping is to maintain and monitor the cease fire, to have a mechanism for resolving violation, to secure an invitation from all parties to put peacekeeping force in place, to provide administrative assistance in humanitarian relief, governance reformation, conduct of election, and economic recovery, to support the resolution for peace and to strengthen the relations and interest of all parties.

The strength of peacekeeping includes the power of legitimacy, burden sharing, and an ability to deploy and sustain troops and police from around the globe, integrating them with civilian peacekeepers to advance multidimensional mandates. Since the past two decades the UN Peacekeepers have provided security, the political and peacebuilding support to help countries transformed, in an early transition from conflict to peace.

Peacekeeping mission has been deployed in many configurations. There are currently 17 UN peace operations deployed on four continents. The multidimensional peacekeeping operations not only struggle to maintain peace and security, but help to “facilitate the political process, protect civilians, assist in the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of former combatants; support the organization of elections, protect and promote human rights and assist in restoring the rule of law.”UN Peacekeeping has built up a demonstrable record of success over 60 years of existence, and has pioneered the establishment of the UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) in the Middle East since 1948. There have been 67 peacekeeping operations worldwide since that time. Peacekeeping continues to adapt to new challenges and political realities and working toward a comprehensive peacekeeping reform, following an increasing demand for complex peace operations worldwide.

2. The Origin of International Intervention

Since the end of post-Cold War era world power has begun to convene and start humanitarian intervention, which came “in the form of military responses to humanitarian crises” (Michael C. Davis, 2004: 3). It was primarily based on claims of national defence, which was sanctioned by the UN charter, and sometimes in combination with UN Security Council initiative, that concern for international orders.

The fundamental interest of international intervention is mainly to solidify and safeguard national interests. It seeks to ensure peace and maintain national security, and counter threats militarily. The intervention inspired multilateral support for peacemaking and nation development, especially in the US successful operations in Somalia, and its military initiatives in Bosnia. This important initiative was disputed on the ground topursuing alternatives peacefuleffort that some prefer peacekeeping while others believe peace enforcement should be the main goal.

The root of foreign intervention is based on ideologies for supporting or opposing varying degrees of foreign intervention in international relations that can be traced from philosophical, religious or scientific origins. Some central philosophical and systemic topics on foreign intervention and war studies include: philosophy of war, deterrence theory, preemptive war, preventive war, war of aggression, global justice, right of revolution and international law.

2.1. History

International intervention has begun to arise since early 1800 – 1900 century. Opium wars in China (1830’s to 1852) have witnessed the Qing Dynasty intervening to stop British opium smuggling markets in coastal parts of China. The British Empire, responded with military intervention to force the Qing Dynasty into signing the “free for us” treaties known as the Treaty of Nanking and the Treaty of Tianjin. (Giraldez, Arturo, 2001: 482-485), (Hammond, Kenneth J., 2008) From 1900 to 1990, the Eight-Nation Alliance, which comprised military forces of Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States intervened in China to suppress the anti-foreign Boxers and relieve the siege of the diplomatic legations in Beijing (Peking).

The Russian Civil War, that lasting from 25 October 1917 to October 1922, saw the foreign intervention from multilateral Western Allies of World War I comprising a number of independent countries – Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland – that established themselves in the war between the Bolshevik Red Army and the White Army, the loosely allied anti-Bolshevik forces (Evan Mawdsley, 2007).The years between 1990-2000 significantly witnessed foreign intervention of the Coalition of the Gulf War in Iraq, and early in 1998 - 1999, UN, OSCE and NATO’s (The North Atlantic Treaty Organization) countries launched multilateral foreign intervention in the armed conflicts in Kosovo province as the first humanitarian war in the controversial Kosovo War.

In 2003, a combined force of troops from United States, United Kingdom, Australia and Poland invaded Iraq and toppled the regime of Saddam in a major combat operation in the Iraq War. This unilateral foreign intervention was based on the Bush Doctrine and coalition of the willing for invasion, regime change and occupation.In 2011 Libyan Civil War (or the Libyan revolution), the United Nations Security Council led the intervention to end armed conflict in the North African state of Libya, and forces Gaddafi government to resign and to prevents attacks on civilians. The war was ended on 23 October 2011 following the fall of Gaddafi and the liberation of Libya was declared.

3. The Cause of International Intervention

The ensuing conflict of ethnic and internal clash of power, tyrannical rule and repressive governance warrant an instant interference from collective powers to impose certain sanctions and finding solution to the raging political problem. International intervention occupied an important role to bring change since the post-Cold War period. Intervention is largely an ideal approach to face the challenge detrimental to human right and global institutions, as mentioned by Kofi Annan: “if humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica – to gross and systematic violations of human rights that offend every precept of our common humanity?” (Kofi Annan, 2000).

The most difficult questions in international law and relations with regard to international intervention are whether armed humanitarian intervention is morally justified. It is an established tradition of international norm that fundamentally recognize all nations to have rights of sovereign power, which traditionally meant that they exercise exclusive political control within their borders.

Thus, intervention, by force against the political sovereignty or territorial integrity of another nation, has traditionally been considered aggression in international relations, which clearly breach foreign land and has its bearing on moral, political, and legal ramifications.

Jerome Slater and Terry Nardin, two famous political scientists argued that "intervention is justified, at least in principle, in many cases where governments are responsible for substantial and systematic violations of human rights, even when such violations fall short of genocidal proportions.”(Jerome Slater and Terry Nardin, 1986: 92).

Slater and Nardin maintain that it is morally appropriate to intervene into other nation’s territory, and they recognize non-aggression approach, peaceful political coercion which can occur through armed force or other coercive but peaceful instruments of political power. They claim that the seriousness of the human rights violation determines the degree of protection against intervention, arguing that “the grosser the violation [of human rights], the weaker the claim to such protection [from intervention.]” (Jerome Slater, 1986) This approach determine that it is morally appropriate to demand foreign intervention and imposed comprehensive sanctions on the purported regime, and battling growing violence and crisis in the invented land.

Thomas M. Frank, an international law expert states that such intervention may be morally justified “if the wrong perpetrated within a state against a part of its own population is of a kind specifically prohibited by an international agreement (e.g., the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; treaties regarding racial discrimination, torture, the rights of women and children; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); and agreements on humanitarian law applicable in civil conflict.)” (Thomas M. Franck, 2002: 135)

This position suggests legalistic justification for intervention, base on generally accepted concepts of morality and fundamental human rights.With its reference to international legal instruments in a wide variety of circumstances, such as the principle embodied in ICCPR relating to the rights of women and children, it demonstrates the principal terms to justify armed intervention. However, it is difficult to justify the use of military force as the only way to address all sorts of racial, gender, or ethnic discrimination.The intervention of a nation in another’s internal affairs must abide to the rules of international law and objectives set out in the UN Charter against the use of force by states except in self-defense against an armed attack (UN, article 2 (4)),and must reflect two important objectives of international law: principle of peace andjustice. (Thomas M. Franck and Nigel S.Rodley, 1973)

4. Aims of International Intervention

The principal target of international intervention is to navigate the solution between the warring parties, and “to find out a peaceful solution to the crisis” (AlWahaonline).The underlying objectives of a policy for foreign intervention can be “philosophical, religious or scientific, based on the different ideological foundations supporting the policy.” Some of its significant objectives includes “national security, support for world government, scientific systemic concern of systemic bias in international relations theory, policy of balancing as a goal for balance of power in international relations or balance of threat.”

Armed intervention aims to lessen the consequences of conflict, protect self-autonomy and human rights, further military and economic interests, establishing order and political stability and reaching consensus between international society base on the requirement of international law and diplomacy, and meddling the negotiation process.

The need for superpower to intervene and making necessary arrangement to send military force is necessary to stop violence and bloodshed and to impose restriction from excessive use of powers that violate fundamental rights of man and women. The base of such intervention is to prepare a comprehensive study on humanitarian needs and to continue providing support forthe majority and innocent civilian.In its resolution of 2005’s World Summit, United Nations had explicitly pronounced international collective responsibility to protect civilians from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. (UN World Summit, 2005)

5. Methods

The political government of a state decides actions of foreign intervention and foreign policy. International intervention can include methods such as sanctions on a foreign economy or international trade, or other international sanctions through international cooperation decisions in guarding international law or global justice. Political support, also decide foreign intervention actions such as occupation, nation-building and national security policies.

There are varying methods on foreign intervention from participants including government, military, international, corporate, religious and public efforts reflecting their respective objectives, interests and ideologies. Foreign intervention methods that are physically passive and do not use violence are non-aggressive. The non-aggressive intervention employed soft approach in carrying diplomatic resolution by sending humanitarian delegation and humanitarian aid and through consultation into the clash area as take place in Syria and Palestine.

The non-aggression principle holds that aggression is inherently illegitimate, but does not preclude defence against aggression. Non-aggressive methods used various sanctions like economic sanctions , embargo , boycott , trade sanctions , political sanctions , and international sanctions . It also used information methods and promotion of efforts for media ; such as information warfare , propaganda , advertising , political symbolism , media democracy , freedom of information to gain political capital and support for political reform . Non-aggressive also appear as publicly organized efforts; like the peace movement and nonviolence organizations, sometimes by religious organizations.

Most of international intervention taking form in military intervention, and troops deployment into the conflicting areas to intervene militarily, and terminate wars and constructively and peacefully resolve the conflict, that might impose brutal force and leveled foreign rule as it has taken place in Iraq (1990), Rwanda and Burundi (1994), Afghanistan (2001) Darfur (2006), Palestine, Libya (2011), and Syria (2012). Recent diplomatic operation in Syria was taken due to crucial erosion of power and deterioration of conflicts and escalation of human rights violation in the country. Mostly, it has successfully sanctioned new laws and making peaceful plan and tightens penalties and stop crimes against humanity perpetrated by the autocratic regime, and supporting people’s aspiration for freedom and legitimate rule.

6. Major Contentions in International Intervention

The main contending argument against international intervention is the incredible damage it brought to the countries it seeks to defend. Members of security communities might not welcome the use of force, which is not appropriate to response to the regional conflicts and internal dilemmas. The strategic and structural solution also is not in place when the superpowers rule and supersede UN authority, and start to punish their enemies. Collective security arrangement and cooperation must be constituted based on shared political idealism and agreed principles. The joining alliances also must continue to work concertedly, otherwise the great powers would start to act independently, and rivalries and tensions would increase.

To ensure smooth operation and rewarding political and global mission, international intervention must take initiatives to (1) reassert itself, at the global level, by actively engage in intervening diplomatically and making regular consultative relationship (2) initiate great-power cooperation in resolving international conflict (3) intensify strategy for peace and security (4) ensuring democratic rule and maintaining good governance, freedom and human right (4) support regional peace building, debt and poverty reduction (5) involves in conscious effort to establish peace and defeat resistance and develop competitive management of armed conflict (6) mobilize cooperation with key regional players in the region to regulate conflicts and establish regional orders.

Conclusion

The preliminary discussion on the nature of international intervention has revealed significant points and important facts on the legitimate uses of military power to intervene into foreign land. The moral justification for armed intervention is defended in Article 1 of the UN Charter, which is “to maintain international peace and security, and...to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace”. The use of force to intervene into other government’s territory must be reviewed based on international moral and legal norms. The essential ideas and underlying philosophy of international intervention must be interpreted and justified through scholarly and political debate. The practical implications of armed intervention must be analyzed based on the shared interest of foreign policy and the positive aspect of armed intervention must be pursued and encouraged.

Works Cited

AlWahaOnline, 2012, “Damascus allows the OIC to send humanitarian aid” April 2012/Jumadah 1-1433, issue 1.

Arend and Beck, 1996, in Oliver Ramsbotham and Tom Woodhouse, Humanitarian Intervention in Contemporary Conflict: A Reconceptualization. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Chris Brown and Kirsten Ainley, 2005, Understanding International Relations. 3rd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Daniel Rice, 2007, “Armed Humanitarian Intervention and International Law: A Primer for Military Professionals” Military Review, Vol. 87 No. 6, November. Evan Mawdsley, 2007. The Russian Civil War. New York: Pegasus Books.

Ferdinando R Teson, 2003, ‘The Liberal Case for Humanitarian Intervention,’ in J. L. Holzgrefe and Robert O. Keohane ed., Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal, and Political Dilemmas. New York: Cambridge University Press.94

Field Manual 100-23, 1994, Peace Operations. Washington, DC: Headquarters Department of the Army.

Giraldez, Arturo, 2001, “Book Review: The World That Trade Created: Society, Culture, and the World Economy, 1400 to the Present” Journal of World History , vol 12.2, 482-485 (online).

Hammond, Kenneth J., 2008, From Yao to Mao: 5000 Years of Chinese History. N.p.: The Teaching Company.

Humanitarian Intervention, 1970, UN Charter, Arts 1 (1), 2 (4), in G.A. Res. 2734 (XXV), 25 UN GAOR, SUPP. 28, at 22, UN Doc.A/8028 (1970).

International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty [ICISS], The Responsibility to Protect (Canada, 2001), available at <www.iciss.ca/ pdf/Commission-Report-pdf>.

James Meernik, 1996, “United States Military Intervention and the Promotion of Democracy”, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 33, No. 4 (Nov.), pp. 391-402.

John M. Collins, 1995, “Military Intervention: A Checklist of Key Considerations.” Parameters, Winter, pp. 53-58.

Jerome Slater and Terry Nardin, 1986, “Nonintervention and Human Rights,” The Journal of Politics, 48, no. 1 (February): 92.

Kenneth W. Thomas, 1992, “Conflict and Conflict Management: Reflections and Update”, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, vol. 13, issue 3, 265-274.

Kofi Anan, 2000, ‘We the Peoples,’ The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century, p. 48. Available from: http://www.un.org/millennium/sg/report/full.htm [accessed 2 May 2012]. L. Holzgrefe, 2003, ‘The Humanitarian Intervention Debate,’ in J. L. Holzgrefe and Robert O. Keohane eds., Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal, and Political Dilemmas. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mary Kaldor, 2007, Human Security: Reflections on Globalization and Intervention. Cambridge University Press.

Michael C. Davis, et.al. (eds.), 2004, International Intervention in the Post-Cold War World: Moral Responsibility and Power Politics. New York: M.E. Sharpe.

Michael Walzer, 2004, Arguing About War. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Military Intervention [online] available at: http:www.answers.com/topic/military-intervention.

Operational Law Handbook, 2006, International and Operational Law Department, The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, 115-118.

Robert O. Keohane, and J.L. Holzgrefe, 2003, ed., Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal, and Political Dilemmas. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Peacekeeping [online]. Available at http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/operations/peace.shtml

The UN Summmit (2005). Charter of the United Nations [“UN Charter”], Art.1(1), <www.un.org/aboutun/charted>.

Thomas M. Franck, 2002, Recourse to Force. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thomas M. Franck and Nigel S. Rodley, 1973, “After Bangladesh: The Law of Humanitarian Intervention by Military Force,” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 67, No. 2 (Apr.), pp. 275-305

UN Peacekeeping Mission in Somalia

This chapter analyzes the complex emergencies works of UN agencies – like UNHCR (United Nations High Commission for Refugees), UNOSOM (United Nations Organization in Somalia), UNITAF (Unified Task Force) and UNICEF (United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund)– and several NGOs like ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross), Oxfam and the Save the Children Fund (SCF) in the 1991-1993 UN peacekeeping mission in Somalia. UN’s intensive response to Somalia’s debacle was timely in confronting the continued civil war and ethnic clashes and bringing significance attempt to galvanize international support in assisting and establishing humanitarian work and advocating democratic rule in the region. UN political initiative to interfere in the Somali civil war was consolidated by unprecedented political support and organized international action in the full force of US military-led coalition and UN humanitarian assistance invented to resolve the dispute in this highly controversial operation to develop emergency conflict resolution and improve peace initiatives in Somalia.

1. Introduction

The breakdown of central government and the collapse of political structures and disintegration of national armies after the banishment of Barre’s regime from power in 1991 had brought unprecedented civil war in Somalia. The continued clash and clan-based fight still reverberated and has devastated the country in this fierce encounter between the two factions of Somali warlords, General Aideed and Ali Mahdi. The war had greatly impacted the nation and brings lasting effect on the general welfare of Somali people and its long-term economic development project. For decades UN had intervene to end the conflict and proposed peace resolution and high prospect for stability, security, vibrant economy and functioning democracy in Somalia. Nevertheless, the continuous battle and armed conflicts that still flamed and reverberated signified the dramatic failure of UN humanitarian intervention in the country.

[...]