Although it is hard to determine the ‘best’ peacekeeper, I would venture to say that the best peacekeeper would be a coalition of the willing with UN approval and mandate.
In order to decide who the best peacekeeper is it is important to look both at the legitimacy with which the peacekeeper enters the field and the efficiency of the peacekeeper in achieving its mandate. To ignore either of these areas would be unbalanced. The best peacekeeper is one who manages to best accommodate these two areas.
Of course the peacekeeper with the highest legitimacy is the UN. Bellamy and Williams in Understanding Peacekeeping (2010) insist that the UN holds the highest legitimacy. In many regards this is because of the international standing held by the UN. However the UN struggles with efficiency and effectiveness. Bellamy and Williams highlight the difficulties involved in organising a UN led peacekeeping force. They explain the long process resulting in the lack of efficiency in organising the force for each mission.
In comparison a coalition of the willing is more efficient in organising such forces (Bellamy and Williams 2005:169), while still holding some legitimacy of its own. This is the primary balance that coalitions benefit from rather than a unilateral action, “pivotal states constructed coalitions to serve two primary functions: share the material costs of the operation... and provide a degree of legitimisation” (Bellamy and Williams 2005:169). This balance can be seen in the Australian led coalition to the Solomon Islands.
Despite the legitimacy lent by a joint action, this pales in comparison to the legitimacy given by the UN. However if these coalitions of the willing were to act under supervision UN, with a UN approved mandate this would effectively increase the legitimacy of such a force while maintaining the efficiency of a coalition of the willing.
No comments:
Post a Comment