So peacekeeping...has that ever actually worked?

June 8, 2012 7:22 AM

Assuming that some sort of UN/NATO/developed world interference can and will be undertaken, and without arguing over the propriety of doing so: Looking for examples of and sources on successful humanitarian interventions or peacekeeping operations. Not necessarily the whole operation, either, even one element that's been particularly successful (or where there's consensus on how or why something went terribly wrong).

I'm Canadian, and we're always given the example of the early peacekeeping operations like Cyprus as shining examples of the best of the peacekeeping/intervention tradition. There have also been more operational examples which I've heard of briefly, such as the female soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan that they eventually brought in to stop traumatizing the locals when they had to do house-to-house searches, and the effectiveness of US troops from tribal cultures (Samoa I think) who were better able to interact with the locals because of small but fundamental cultural similarities that let them interact with the locals without subtly disrespecting them.
In terms of epic failures, they often seem to be a balance of force issue: doing too little and letting the criminal regime win and slaughter our local allies, or going overboard and carpet bombing civilian targets, thereby alienating our local allies because we've killed their families.
I am not interested in conquerors, pacification efforts, or empire building, unless they had the distinct effect of improving the lives of the target population which actually needed improvement ("your lives must be better now because you're part of the X Empire!" doesn't count, but maybe "your lives are better now because you're not all slaughtering each other!" does). This will probably limit me to the 20th century, but I'd love to hear about older examples if any exist.
I'm interested in sources including biographies and autobiographies, but if there's a topic or item that fits I'm happy to dig up sources myself.

posted by sarahkeebs to Society & Culture (13 answers total)

Richard K. Betts, "The Delusion of Impartial Intervention" (Revised Version), in Chester Crocker, Fen Osler Hampson, and Pamela Aall, eds., Turbulent Peace (U.S. Institute of Peace Press, 2001)

Virginia Page Fortna, Does Peacekeeping Work? (Princeton University Press, 2008)

Kimberly Zisk Marten, Enforcing the Peace: Learning from the Imperial Past (2004)
posted by shothotbot at 7:38 AM on June 8, 2012

The un publishes a review of their missions every year on their website. This is a start and can provide info on what they learnt from situations like Kosovo.
posted by jojobobo at 7:40 AM on June 8, 2012 [1 favorite]

I'm not 100% sure I follow the question, but perhaps the Korean war? Obviously a terrible and bloody conflict, but it kept millions outside the influence of the nutjobs who've run the DPRK since the 50's.
posted by pompomtom at 7:44 AM on June 8, 2012

The Australian/UN intervention in East Timor in 1999 quelled the violence after East Timor's independence referendum, and paved the way for East Timorese independence and the consequent end of the widespread human rights abuses from the period of Indonesian rule. The intervention came after Australian government came under a great deal of public pressure from their own public because of the atrocities being committed.
posted by plep at 8:39 AM on June 8, 2012 [1 favorite]

The American intervention in Panama went pretty well. They got in, got their man, and got out again, and Panama was the better for it.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 8:55 AM on June 8, 2012

Different people have different definitions of success in peacekeeping, so it's hard to find a definitive list of successes or failures. There's also a fine line (or maybe no line) between peacekeeping and counterinsurgency. But here's some books and reading lists to explore, including some interesting things specifically about Canada that are a quick google away:

http://www.peacekeeper.ca/stories.html

http://www.peaceoperations.org/index.php/peacekeeping-resources/books/lang/en/

http://www.umanitoba.ca/outreach/cm/vol12/no3/canadianpeacekeepers.html

http://www.canadianmilitaryhistory.ca/a-review-of-michael-k-carrolls-pearsons-peacekeepers-canada-and-the-united-nations-emergency-force-1956-67-by-matt-symes/

http://politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/4718/G53.2704_forman_f05.pdf

http://regimentalrogue.com/library/CARL10_peacekeeping.htm

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ssi/nagl-panel-apr05.pdf (also the book by the same name: Eating Soup With A Knife.)

http://www.ndu.edu/press/counterinsurgency-not-a-strategy.html

http://policy.defense.gov/solic/psso/readinglist.aspx

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/resources/biblio/CAC_counterinsurgency.asp

http://ccoportal.org/resources/reading-lists
posted by RandlePatrickMcMurphy at 9:00 AM on June 8, 2012

Would you count what we did in Japan/the big three allies did in West Germany post-WWII, the UN did in South Korea post-1953, and Great Britain did in Hong Kong?

I sort-of almost believe the Philippines were possibly materially better off after the Philippine-American War (and clean-up/transformation efforts that followed) than they were before it, but it's complicated, not least because they'd just finished a war before that one started, and because it's not clear to me exactly how the First Philippine Republic would have played out if it had lived for much time at all. In any case, they were almost certainly better off under the US than they were or would be under Spain, which was notably crappy at running... well... okay, I just have a really low opinion of Spain's administrative efforts across the board. See, e.g., most of South America. Heck, see Spain: giant fractious civil wars don't generally happen in countries that are gliding along smoothly.

Anyway, there's also Macau to consider. That was almost more of a "gradually learning to deal with each other and then the new guys' original country takes over" thing, rather than an intentional way of asserting control and transforming a locality, which I think is more of what you're going for. I'm hoping I live long enough to see how the Chinese handle the reversal of this process, though they're changing so much it may be difficult to claim it was the same people starting off the reassimilation as finished it.

The Romans were really into this, if you want to look back further in time. Their impact on the part of Britain that they actually attempted to control seems to have been materially positive in the long run, but I doubt the locals would have agreed at all at the time, and once Rome left, there was a definite reversion, though they retained advantages they probably wouldn't have gotten, or gotten so fast, without outside interference. Certainly the Romans imposed a certain amount of organization/structure/administrative competence that was lacking - just randomly picking winners from amongst the tribes isn't particularly humane, but it can be effective in terms of increasing the standard of living & promoting long-term success for whoever is left once the winning is finished. I don't think it's coincidental that Britain was able to walk all over Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, for example - or that they were a tastier target for later invasion than their disorganized neighbors.
posted by SMPA at 9:35 AM on June 8, 2012

(Oh, and the US has done a lot of low-level stuff in various places we've been invited to go to.)
posted by SMPA at 9:36 AM on June 8, 2012

You might want to look at British involvement in Sierra Leone.

A definition of success would probably depend on perspective. A Kosovo-Albanian might regard the NATO intervention in 1999 successful. A Serbian might disagree. Some Libyans are glad the West toppled Gadaffi, others would strongly condemn it.
posted by MighstAllCruckingFighty at 9:40 AM on June 8, 2012 [2 favorites]

The UN Missions in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Mozambique are generally considered examples of successful modern peacekeeping operations (each country moved from a state of civil war to a sustained democratic government). The NATO IFOR and SFOR operations were also fairly successful- less than 20 years ago Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia Herzegovina (and Slovenia to a lesser extent) were in an all out ethnic war, now they are all either EU members or far along to path to membership.
posted by chrisulonic at 10:10 AM on June 8, 2012

Some people think that a big indicator of success or failure is if peacekeepers are invited in by all, or most, parties who are ready to stop fighting but don't trust each other. Peacekeeping might work. Peace imposition probably wont without taking the most powerful party, pinning a badge on him and calling him 'Sheriff', in which case it's not peace keeping it's intervention in a civil war.
posted by shothotbot at 10:35 AM on June 8, 2012

East Timor and Cyprus both leapt to my mind immediately, though Cyprus in particular is ongoing.
posted by smoke at 3:49 PM on June 8, 2012

The Vietnamese intervention in Cambodia is near the top of this list for me. Vietnam grew sick of the chaos and mass murder on its borders and (ignoring Chinese warnings against interfering) invaded, deposed the Khmer Rouge, established order, and (after a 10 year occupation/puppet state) left behind a Cambodia which, while far from perfect, was miles better than what they found in 1979.

This conflict was notable for several reasons, not least that it was a rare example of the United States and the PRC supporting the same side in a war. The Chinese were so pissed off about Vietnam wiping out its Maoist ally that it invaded Vietnam, and got its nose badly bloodied in the process (a fact which almost no Chinese people today seem to know).
posted by 1adam12 at 9:59 PM on June 8, 2012