The UN at War by John Karlsrud

Author:John Karlsrud
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Springer International Publishing, Cham

UN Stabilization and Counter-Terrorism Missions?

There are no easy answers to the challenges that some of today’s—and most of tomorrow’s—peace operation theatres will bring. For instance, how should the burden-sharing among the UN, regional organizations , coalitions of the willing , and national interventions be organized? Part of the solution must be to clearly delineate what UN peace operations can and cannot do. The HIPPO Report and the follow-up report from the SG both drew the line against counter-terrorism operations. The 2015 US presidential memorandum, United States Support to United Nations Peace Operations, argued that although UN peace operations in “select and exceptional cases” can be tasked to “conduct offensive military operations against armed groups that act as spoilers outside of a peace process,” it added that UN “peace operations cannot substitute for diplomatic solutions to end a war, nor for more forceful military interventions that need to be carried out in non-permissive environments by individual states or coalitions that possess the will and capacity to do so” (White House 2015: 2). The memorandum indicated that UN peace operations could “replace national or coalition military forces in operations once an area has transitioned from an immediate crisis to a more permissive environment” (ibid.). It did not seem to support the kind of co-deployment of a counter-terrorism force and a UN peace operation that we see in Mali.

The HIPPO panel advised that UN peace operations should be able to detect, mitigate, and defend itself against violent extremism and terrorist threats. Theoretically, in some cases it may be possible to align impartiality with limited offensive measures against transnational terrorist groups, if these are seen as externally driven and motivated, and not representing the local population. However, terrorist groups are entwined in illicit economic activities and organized crime that tend to involve local and national elites, making the issue more complex as well as political.

The HIPPO panel was opposed to UN involvement in counter-terrorism, but it also requested further clarification on the use of the concept of “stabilization” in UN peace operations. As we have seen, there are divergent understandings of this term among member states and the UN, ranging from peace enforcement to peacebuilding efforts. What future role should the UN have in Iraq, Libya , Syria , and Yemen ? If the UNSC is not able or willing to outsource peace enforcement missions in these countries to other organizations, new options and modi operandi could be considered. Several authors have argued that, for this reason, the UN should consider conceptualizing UN stabilization missions, equipped with principles and tools for better dealing with such threats and mission environments (Boutellis 2015; Karlsrud 2016a; de Coning et al. 2017). As there is increasing pressure to move the UN in this direction, it can be useful to sketch out the intended and unintended consequences of such a development.

Stabilization missions would be deployed to support the government in stabilizing a territory, if necessary by force. They would have to be able to conduct offensive operations against armed and terrorist groups.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.