Talk:Peacekeeping

message: I have been working on a new outline and framework for this page which I think will be more cogent and organized. It's not complete yet, but what I have so far can be found in my sandbox here.--Kdion (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiEdu Edits

message: Is the AU mission in Darfur considered peacekeeping?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.206.209 (talk) 09:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Although UN approval doesn't "make" a peacekeeping mission, AMIS is recognized by the UN as a so-called "Chapter 8" mission - one which is run by a non-UN organization with UN approval, like the missions in the Balkans and Afghanistan. Geoff NoNick 10:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are referring to ISAF, it is not a peacekeeping operation. See e.g. myths and facts section on peacekeeping in unac.org  83.245.225.99 (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Darfur

message: I don't  think that should redirect it to here.  UN peacekeeping deserves it's own page. I would think that this article should talk about how peackeeping works and it's history with mention of the United Nations, Nato,and individual nations peackeeping forces(such as India's IPKF) and a link.  Am I wrong?  Falphin 23:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: UN peackeeping???

message: This following sentence seems to me misleading:
"Peacekeeping is a way to help countries torn by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace"
I would say that peacekeeping is a way to facilitate peace negotiation in countries that have been torn by conflict.
One example: Rwanda in 1994 was definitely torn by conflict. However, UN peacekeepers certainly did not create conditions for sustainable peace, because the genocide happened after they arrived.
What they did do was provide a somewhat more positive environment in which leaders could negotiate a peace.
Please respond if you have an objection to this proposed change.
--Zaorish
Changing the wording to emphasize the past tense of the verb would not solve the valid problem you bring up.  What about changing it to "Peacekeeping attempts to assist contries torn by conflict to create conditions for sustainable peace."
--Morph
I would say it depends on the level of conflict and how late the UN arrived. Anyways, the article only says that the UN defines it that way. There are probably different definitions elsewhere.
--Yboy403
I think the example of Rwanda was not fully thought out. The aticle on UNAMIR - the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda - states: "Among the first targets of the genocide were the Prime Minister and 10 Belgian members of the UNAMIR forces. These troops were murdered after handing over their weapons to Rwandan government troops. They were advised to do so by their battalion commander who was unclear on the legal issues with authorising them to defend themselves, even though they had been under fire for about two hours already.This confusion over legal protocols typified the response of UNAMIR to the escalating chaos. The misson's vague mandate, created under Chapter VI of the UN Charter was unclear about the right to use force, particularly in defence of civilians. The mission's original intention was to oversee the implementation of the Arusha peace agreement. However, by the time of the genocide, the peace agreement was completely irrelevant and UNAMIR was legally powerless." The UN peacekeepers were unable to intervene during the genocide because it wasnt clear as to what rights they had to fire there weapons.
I would also like to point out the recent UN resolution for the crisis in Lebanon. The Resolution and deployment of a UN Peacekeeping force intends to assist both Israel and Lebanon create conditions for the citizens of both countries to live. So in this case the peacekeepers are creating a buffer zone between the countries, and focus the negotiations to the real issue: Hezbollah which created the unrest within the region. 
It could be changed to "Peacekeeping is a system which creates peaceful conditions in regions that by themselves are unable to create sustainable peace"
--alias_pizzaman
:As an overall reply about the subject of the first sentence, the link for the citation is dead, and the United Nations seems to have taken a new stance on the definition of Peace Keeping as stated here: http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/ - Fallenangei (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right, thanks for pointing that out. I have fixed it. - Ahunt (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence appears misleading 

message: As Falphin noted above, UN Peacekeeping redirects here. I placed the :Category: Nobel Peace Prize winners on that redirect so it would show up correctly inside the category.--Bookandcoffee 07:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for fixing that. It was the legacy of a article about a person/editor who was supposedly a UN peacekeeper who insisted on placing the Nobel Peace Prize winner category on the bio. As a compromise we created the Peacekeeper category, put him in it, then gave the prize to the category. After all that work it turned out the article was a hoax. Since no one has ever been added to the category, it appears useless. (Odd that there haven't been any real notable UN Peacekeepers.) Cheers, -Will Beback 08:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: United Nations Peacekeeping Forces

message: I know wikipedia ain't a forum, but I just want to say that peacekeepers can be described in one word: armed social workers. The little military uniform, blue helmet and gun are just to make them look like soldiers so   as to seemingly act as a symbol of internation authority. AllStarZ 04:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your one-word description is Armed Social Workers? That description is three words, not one. :-)  Just joking around with you, I see your point...Jporcaro 15:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. I'm pro-multilateralism and international cooperation, but I think that will only have a chance if the UN toughens up. Disgraces like Rwanda where (Belgian/French/Canadian) UN forces run away as soon as shots are fired are one of the reasons why there is so little faith in UN peacekeeping. Wouter Lievens 16:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, Belgium pulled their contigent out when they lost 10 soldiers on a single day at the beginning of the genocide. The Canadian part of the mission was small and consisted of a handful of HQ/ higher command staff (if I remember correctly) and France wasn't even part of the original UNAMIR. I have two issues with the above statement: first, members of UNAMIR received hostile fire even before the genocide started in April 1994 so it's plain wrong to say that they ran away as soon as shots are fired. Second, the original UNAMIR mandate was based on chapter 6 of the UN charta. Which was (more or less) fine as long as they tried to keep the peace, but wholly inadequate when peace enforcement would have been in order beginning in April. That it took the Security Council much too long to upgrade UNAMIR's strength and mandate was surely not UNAMIR's fault. Those of UNAMIR who made it through the genocide in Rwanda are among the bravest military people anywhere in the world. --Uwe 23:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rant

message: Criticisms of UN peacekeeping and its effectiveness are just that. The "criticisms" and "reform" sections should be summarized here in one sentence and given a page of their own. Many seem to have opinions of peacekeeping and peacekeepers based on received notions and little else. Prejudice, hearsay, and emotional reactions do not constitute knowledge.  
Not all peacekeepers are "blue helmets" -- that distinction goes to soldiers under peacekeeping command. Civilian police and military observers perform different roles within peacekeeping operations, and are not referred to as blue helmets... sometimes blue berets. Civilians are never called blue helmets or peacekeepers; they are peacekeeping staff or UN mission staff. 
More emphasis should be given to the civilian aspect of peacekeeping and the expansion of the UN peacekeeping model since the 1990s. Large peacekeeping missions integrate political and humanitarian efforts on a broad scale, involving many UN agencies. During UNTAET 2000-2002, the UN was effectively the government of East Timor, the first and only time the UN acted in the role of national administration. 
UN political and peacebuilding missions are not usually administered by the UN dept. of peacekeeping (DPKO); they often have military observers and police advisors, but no armed soldiers and no military mandate. There is no mention anywhere of this distinction. 
UN peacekeeping is a complex issue that deserves a lot better technical synopsis and a lot less opinion mongering.
--slammyapple 04:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misconceptions 

message: Seems like UN Peacekeeping should have its own article and this should be about the general concept. The other peacekeeprs (NATO, etc.) should have their own articles too. Thoughts? savidan(talk) (e@) 05:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with that...Mike McGregor (Can) 08:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  By the way, what exactly is the nuance convoyed by "Blue Helmet" ? Is it very informal ? I often hear it in official discourse... Rama 09:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blue Helmet is just a metonymy like the crown for the British monarchy. No one has objected, but where do we go from here? savidan(talk) (e@) 02:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd say UN peacekeeping already has its own page: List of UN peacekeeping missions, including links and wikipedia pages for most missions.  A bit more text and a title change of that page to UN Peacekeeping would probably be sufficient (as well as excising some text from this article).  --M4-10 05:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split? 

message: I don't know why, but I'm not liking the title of the section "Issues with Peacekeeping".  Perhaps "Criticism" would be more appropriate. Crabbyass 04:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature 

message: In the following paragraph:
"In 1987 an Indian peacekeeping force, IPKF, entered Sri Lanka to help maintain peace. With similar results to the US mission in Vietnam, India was forced to withdraw in 1990.  However, the reasons for withdrawal were different in that the IPKF did not have necessary military equipment such as tanks or air support (other than one helicopter)."
The reasoning for withdrawal mentioned here is incorrect. 
I believe the undisputed reason was because under the agreement, the Sri Lankan government asked the IPKF to leave (see the join comminique http://www.tamilnation.org/intframe/india/89ipkfwidthdrawal.htm).  This was since the IPKF took sides in the Sri Lankan ethnic conflict, going against one of the protaganist, namely the LTTE and led to about 1200 casualties  on the IPKF side. As having seen IPKF forces in Sri Lanka at that time and seen their armaments, I should mention having seen T-72 tanks and fighter jets and probably more than one Mi-24 hind gunship.  I don't have references to the number of military equipment etc used and hence I wanted to make this point and let someone here/maintainer followup on the leads I have pointed out and make the corrections.
There is also an official set of reasons for India's withdrawal, see the following link from the Jain Commision for the Indian Govt. official stand.
http://www.india-today.com/jain/vol8/chap39.html
Johnathan1155 05:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPKF 

message: I agree with the above statement but will also like to comment that if the nature of this article is focused on UN Peacekeeping, the inclusion of this peacekeeping mission, which was not endorsed in any way by the United Nations, seems to be irrelevant. This comment comes directly from Ambassador Jamsheed Marker, a professor and friend of mine, who was involved and the directed the peace mission in east timor. NeoXtremeX 04:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IPKF Was not part of UN Peacekeeping 

message: Re a comment above, I'm interested in working towards featured article status (see WP:FA).  There are of course very stringent requirements for achieving this, but I think we can manage.  First, let's come up with an outline of what we want and need.  Any ideas?  --Tjss(Talk) 05:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article status 

message: I've drafted a new version (see Talk:Peacekeeping/Sandbox) and will be posting it within a few days unless there is significant objection.  It's not a final draft, but I've organized and cleaned up a lot of stuff, and it should provide a basis for future edits.  --Tjss(Talk) 22:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New version 

message: I've got some concerns about the presentation of the Kosovo bit on peacekeeping.  The presence of NATO troops on the ground in Kosovo in 1999 was a result of all parties agreeing to the conditions established in the Rambouillet talks of February/March of that year.  By all sides agreeing to the presence of ground troops, it became a bona fide peacekeeping mission, not a unilaterally imposed peace.  Although it can be argued that the NATO bombing campaign was convincing enough to agree to the talks, the majority of the points of the talks had been accepted before the air campaign started.  In summary, this was not a peace enforcement mission, as it is stated in the article.  Somalia was peace enforcement.  It was a peacekeeping mission, although not in the "classic" sense.  I would recommend removing the whole section on Kosovo and peace enforcement. UEL 08:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kosovo 

message: One section of this article states that Canada has lost the most people on Peacekeeping missions, another states that it is India. In addition, the total number of dead varies between the two sections. In addition, the article states that Canada (currently 53rd in peacekeeping contributions) is "the most experienced" peacekeeping nation. What does this mean, how is it quantified, and what is the source for this claim?--Ggbroad 17:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory Figures 

message: "However, the government of one of the world's most experienced peacekeeping nations, Canada, has asserted the costs of peacekeeping are worthwhile ."
:Irrelevent to start.  Next, the Conservative government has said no such thing.  And I can almost guarantee no one can find a statement from the previous three Liberal governments that weighs psychological damage to peacekeepers to mission benefits.  Go ahead and prove me wrong.
"...most Canadians believe the high cost is justified in order to create a more peaceful world ."
:Irrelevent, again, and not linked at all to psychological damage.  Also where is the poll that asks Canadians "if peacekeeping is worth the costs"?  A more relevent (but probably non-existent) poll would ask that question to veterans of UN peacekeeping missions (Canadian or otherwise).  I know most Canadian soldiers think the UN is a joke and peacekeeping is a dirty word.
"Also, the Canadian government says experience gained in peacekeeping operations has been invaluable to the Canadian Forces when Canadian troops were called out in domestic situations - such as during the Oka Crisis."
:Irrelevent and not linked to psychological damage.  Also, the Conservative government has said no such thing.  I doubt the the previous 3 Liberal governments linked peacekeeping to Oka.
:And this is why I previous deleted the whole ugly paragraph, and will again in a couple days.  --M4-10 00:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm for cutting it, too. Not sure it's relevant or fixable. --Ggbroad 01:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your constructive input.--Ggbroad 12:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what this section of the article needs to state is that peacekeeping, while not the same as combat operations, involves significant risks.--Ggbroad 13:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Acutally, specific risks. Normal soldiers on combat operations reply when shot. They are not taken hostages. They do not come back home traumatised for having been forced to watched civilians get butchered without begin able to do anything about it (exceptions for Rwanda). I think of the film Warriors, but lots of other references could be as or more relevant. Rama 13:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The point that needs to be made is one that the general public who turns to an article such as this may not be aware of - the peacekeeping involves considerable risks. This isn't self-evident to many people.--Ggbroad 02:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential Harm To Troops 

message: I hope this is an appropriate place to mention it, but was it wanted, that the articles UNITAF, UNOSOM I and ONUCA and ONUSAL have abbreviations as names and all the other 35 articles full names? --Mandavi 23:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  names of mission articles 

message: UN Peacekeeping would suggest temporary with no training. This middle to long-term and is legitimate structured law enforcement that provides training for the host nation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallicio (talk • contribs) 05:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NO. DO NOT MERGE! 

message: Just as War in South Ossetia (2008) gets hot and "peacekeepers" drop their pretense. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the article should mention things that are sometimes wrongly called “peacekeepers,” including Russian missions in Georgia, Azerbaijan, and elsewhere. —Michael Z. 20:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian ''mirotvortsy'' not mentioned  

message: Can you provide some info on what particularly needs cleaning up? - Ahunt (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no explanation of what was intended by this tag has been forthcoming in almost four months, the tag has been removed. If the tag is still justified please describe here what work needs to be done. - Ahunt (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean-up tag

message: Correct me iuf I am wrong but an offical army or a rebel army ect; attacking Peacekeeper forces woujld be a form of diplomatic suicide no?--Jakezing (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Israel did it and got away with it. - Ahunt (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First: When; Second gotta remember ?Isreal is allied to very important UN leaders. So we take a less lineant look on them then we would say; Russia or a african Nation.--Jakezing (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "Ahunt" might be referring to Attacks on United Nations personnel during the 2006 Lebanon War Nam31ess (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attacking them 

message: I was reading the lead and found the paragraph about the Security Council:
"The Charter of the United Nations gives the UN Security Council the power and responsibility to take collective action to maintain international peace and security. For this reason, the international community usually looks to the Security Council to authorize peacekeeping operations, as all UN Peacekeeping missions must be authorized by the Security Council."
Is'n't that Redudant? I mean it's like saying "stupid Retard"; --Jakezing (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite right, it is redundant. It is unsourced, too, so it can easily be fixed, which I have done. - Ahunt (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redudant lines 

message: This entry is written as though there is a proper noun International Police, but there is no such organization and therefore should be merged with Peacekeeping as suggested. I have already removed International Police as a proper noun from other entries and will continue to do so.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by QASIMARA (talk • contribs) 01:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge it already! 

message: List of countries by number of UN peacekeepers should be merged onto this page, right?Ckety 20:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be linked from this article, but I don't see any reason to merge it into this article. This article isn't about the UN specifically covers many non-UN peackeeping missions. Perahaps it should be merged into List of United Nations peacekeeping missions instead. - Ahunt (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  List 

message: "the deployment of international military and civilian personnel to a conflict area with the consent of the parties to the conflict in order to: stop or contain hostilities or supervise the carrying out of a peace agreement" have been used as a definition of peacekeeping, by e.g. unac.org and Earl Conteh-Morgan in Collective Political Violence: An Introduction to the Theories and Cases of Violent Conflicts. The original source is said to be Fact Sheet, "The UN and Peacekeeping" p. 1 - does anyone know where to find this particular fact sheet? Nam31ess (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  On definitions 

message: How many "Citation Needed" notes does a single paragraph need?  It's a bit silly...
108.171.121.3 (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you prefer we can comply with WP:V and just remove the challenged text. In the meantime the warn readers that the text is not supported by references. - Ahunt (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed 

message: First thoughts and observations: 
First, I have to say that I have very little academic experience examining the issue of peacekeeping, 
Looking at the page, the first thing that strikes me is that there has not yet been any contributions to the page from the Columbia student editor, Kdion; after searching a while, I found that there is a broad three-part overview of strategies for the page in the User:Kdion page. My first suggestion is to begin editing the main page. 
After checking out Jack's comments and @Kdion's talk page, I think the article looks to be in great working shape. 
Definition ambiguity 
There seems to be some contradictory information about the term peacekeeping. In some reporting, the term is limited to United Nations Peacekeeping; however, I have noticed that there are peacekeeping operations carried out by regional organizations, such as the African Union’s AMISOM in Somalia; the ECOWAS mission in Guinea Bissau; the EU missions in Mali, Somalia, and Central African Republic; non-UN Multinational Force and Observer (MFO) missions in the Sinai, and the NATO peacekeeping missions in the Balkans (IFOR, SFOR. and KFOR).  This is also being challenged on the talk page, so it needs to be adequately addressed. 
I also understand that there is an array of “types” of peacekeeping deployments, and there is a range of variety in specialists deployed, ranging from military personnel, civilian police, conflict resolution specialists, and hybrid combinations. You should definitely explain these types and variances in personnel. 
Definition and Types of Peacekeeping
They added information on the "types" of peacekeeping missions is great, but a little confusing to read. I think the language in the first paragraph could be cleaned up a little bit in reference to consent based cases, however since my knowledge of the subject is extremely limited, I have not done so in case I stripped out any unnecessary information. 
Case studies
I think the structure of the page should definitely include a chronological listing of all peacekeeping missions – historical and current – with details for each including the reason for deployment (including information on conflict and designated role of peacekeeping force); personnel figures; commitment from each country for each mission (donations of equipment, funds, personnel, or other resources); significant incidents (combat, violence, intimidation, casualties, conduct/disciplinary matters); success in conflict resolution or resumption of hostilities; and an overall summary and assessment gauging successes and failures.
Case Studies...
I agree with user:kdion in that a definitive argument and summary of peacekeeping missions would be far too much of task to take on for this page, and believe the missions should just be listed with external or internal wikilinks if possible. The article displays a very solid amount of specific instances so far, and your sandbox seems to show that more is coming. That being said, the article could definitely be benefited by the inclusion of any relevant case studies, so long as they do not become too burdernsome as you work through all of this information. 
Academic contributions to the subject
This page is presently devoid of social science contributions based upon academic research on the subject matter. It is necessary to evaluate the impact of peacekeeping deployments through the lens of social science to determine whether it actually promotes peaceful outcomes, and to determine political, economic, and social implications. 
One important academic contribution comes from Columbia professor Virginia Page Fortna. Take a look at her article in International Studies Quarterly Does Peacekeeping Keep Peace? International Intervention and the Duration of Peace After Civil War (easy to locate via CLIO). If you like the work, consider reading her book Does Peacekeeping Work? Shaping Belligerents’ Choices After Civil War  …then consider requesting to meet with her. Also, as this course is focused on political violence and order, I would suggest honing in on how peacekeeping operations help stabilize (or destabilize) political order within a state following a conflict. 
In researching this topic, I have also noted that there is some degree of controversy over where peacekeeping falls in relation to conflict resolution strategies within the dominion of International Relations theory. Does peacekeeping interfere with peacebuilding?  
It seems to me that the noble aims of peacekeeping can actually be exploited by different powerbrokers in a regime where there are still divisions, political contestation, and competition for resources. 
 
Critiques of Peacekeeping
While I note that you mention failures in peacekeeping as a subject to address, I wanted to mention that the perception I have based upon many lectures and panels I have attended is that government officials involved in policy have a fairly low opinion of peacekeeping missions and their prospects for success.  I also recalled reading some pieces in Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy that were highly critical, so I did a little research and located one in Foreign Affairs that I read that I would recommend: Paving the Road to Hell: The Failure of U.N. Peacekeeping by Max Boot (March/April 2000) and one in Foreign Policy that I would recommend: They Just Stood Watching by Colum Lynch 
<http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/04/07/they-just-stood-watching-2/> 
In this section I think it might be beneficial to discuss what actually constitutes success in a region given the specific task of the peacekeeping force. In some instances non-violent transition would be victory, while in others forces must make sure to avoid civil unrest in any major aspect. It would be interesting to see an argument that points this point, or any other information on the subject. 
Kevinmccarthy25 (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendations for improving page (peer review) 

message: Hi , this is a really comprehensive overhaul of the page. nicely done. Here are some suggestions for further work:
* Consider updating the lede to reflect your additions and reorganization
* Nice job on the definitions and types
** I added some organization with subheadings. Not sure if it is right but it needed something to organize long sections.
* I pulled the gender discussion under participation in peacekeeping
* I thought the other items listed under "Considerations" (not a great heading) actually desrrved to be collected under "Impacts of peacekeeping on participating forces" and moved down
* In general I tried to make headings a little clearer
* The effectiveness discussion would benefit from a discussion of what constitutes effectiveness. What are the relevant outcomes?
* The Peacekeeping, human trafficking, and forced prostitution subsection could integrate some of Michael Gilligan and Bernd Beber's work in Liberia.
Chrisblattman (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Comments 

message: — Assignment last updated by Samantha Mitchell (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Foundations of Clinical Trauma Psychology Fall Quarter2022

message: — Assignment last updated by 4xxxx4 (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Sex, Power and International Politics