Vol 23, No 2 (2023): Contours of Non-Western Peacekeeping

Research in the field of regional conflict resolution rarely touches on the issue of justice. This paper aims to identify what understanding of international justice underlies Russia’s actions as a mediator/peacekeeper in the process of regional conflict resolution in the 1990s-2010s. The study also contributes to the understanding of Russia’s foreign policy by clarifying Moscow’s views on the essence and parameters of a just global order. The paper provides a study of the dominant Russian views on the essence of justice in international relations. It offers an insight into Russia’s peace-making and conflict resolution activities in the context of the three concepts of global justice and taking into account the factor of national interests. The study concludes that the dominant understanding of international justice in Russia is that which corresponds to Allen Buchanan’s concept of subjective justice. In Moscow’s view, international justice is a set of rules developed in the process of consensus driven negotiations between the great powers. According to this logic, a just settlement of the regional conflict is possible only on the basis of the consensus of the parties to the conflict and in accordance with the interests of the global and regional powers concerned. The fair interaction of the great powers in the settlement of the regional conflict and the impact that the conflict resolution could have on the development of the international order were of crucial importance for Moscow within the period under consideration. Moscow’s activity in the conflict resolution in the post-Soviet space generally corresponded to the model of justice as mutual recognition, but with absolute priority of Russian national interests. The strategy for resolving regional conflicts in the post-Soviet space could only be understood in the broad context of relations with Western countries and has changed in line with the development of these relations.

In January 2022, Kazakhstan was faced with an attempt of a violent change of power in the form of mass protests that spread throughout the country and were organized with the basic techniques of color revolutions. The country’s own law enforcement forces were not able to cope with radical citizens, looters-rioters, and terrorists, and in these circumstances the head of state, K.K. Tokayev, decided to request the support of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) allies, who immediately sent the united peacekeeping troops to the republic. The CSTO peacekeeping mission, coordinated by Russia, successfully restored constitutional order in the country and prevented a violent coup d’état. The purpose of this research is to analyze the course of the January events and actions of the CSTO, as well as their impact on Kazakhstan, the region and the organization itself. The paper is based on interviews with experts from the CSTO member states, studies carried out in this area of research, and statements by official authorities. The synthesis of the research results is divided into thematic blocks and supplemented by the author’s conclusions. The paper mentions aspects such as the transition of power, changes in Kazakhstan’s domestic and foreign policies, the effectiveness of the CSTO organization and the expansion of its potential use. Proposals are also provided regarding the strengthening of defense integration and the need to develop a common regional identity. The research is unique in that it brings expert opinions from six CSTO member states, the results of studies carried out by researchers from Russia, Kazakhstan, and abroad, and the theoretical terminology of Western political ideology. The author presents the area of responsibility of the CSTO as a Eurasian security community based not only on collective security, but also on economic interdependence and a sense of community among the nations of its member states.

This paper conducts a comparative analysis of three cases - Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam - to examine the distinctive features of Southeast Asian states’ involvement in peacekeeping. These cases provide representative insights into the motivations and experiences of regional states that joined UN peacekeeping operations at different historical junctures: Indonesia in the 1950s, Thailand in the 1990s, and Vietnam in the 2000s. By identifying the common and unique aspects of this engagement, the authors argue that Southeast Asian nations’ approaches to peacekeeping are deeply rooted in the values that underpin their foreign and domestic policies. Appealing to these values, Southeast Asian states contribute conceptual innovations to existing peacekeeping models, which are predominantly based on Western perspectives. By generalizing the peacekeeping experiences of Southeast Asian states, this paper fills a gap between broader publications that focus on Asian peacekeeping practices and single-country studies. The research underscores that Southeast Asian states, following a challenging period of decolonization and nation-building in the framework imposed by the Westphalian international relations system, have been trying to infuse their own approaches into the Westernized realm of international interaction. Since the 1950s, several regional states have participated in UN peacekeeping operations. The involvement of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in resolving the Cambodian conflict in the late 1980s and the Thailand - Cambodia settlement in 2008-2011 has stimulated the development of regional peacekeeping practices. By contributing to peacekeeping operations, Southeast Asian states aspire to enhance their regional and even global influence. In certain instances, their engagement in peacekeeping has ideological, cultural or religious motivations, or stems from specific foreign and domestic policy considerations.

The study deals with the problem of mediation in the settlement of the longest territorial conflict in Latin America between Peru and Ecuador, highlighting its origins. The main goal of conflict resolution is not only the elimination of the conflict itself, but the transformation of a real conflict situation into a peaceful process of social or political change, where mediation is a strategy or a tool to end the conflict. The authors use an integrated approach, where the most appropriate theoretical basis for considering and resolving these conflicts is neoliberalism, as well as the problem-chronological approach, the historical method, which makes it possible to trace the prerequisites and the development of the territorial conflict, and mediation efforts to resolve it. It was concluded that the Ecuadorian-Peruvian war, although it was the result of the perception of divergent territorial interests, was caused by the unsuccessful mediation activities of the guarantor countries (Brazil, USA, Chile and Argentina). The mediation activities of Brazil, the USA, Chile and Argentina in 1995-1998 led to the so-called “elegant agreement,” one way or another taking into account the interests of Peru and Ecuador. In this regard, the special importance of the mediation activities of the guarantor countries in resolving the conflict was emphasized, as well as their main tools, such as: negotiation processes, signing documents on the territorial dispute, participating in the demarcation of borders, monitoring compliance with the agreements reached, contributing to the active development of Ecuadorian-Peruvian relations after the signing of the peace treaty and preventing the escalation of the conflict in the future. As a result of the consideration of the role of each intermediary country in the settlement of the Alto Cenepa conflict, their own interests were touched and the key areas of participation in peacekeeping activities were listed, and it was concluded that Brazil’s position was the most active.

A strong partnership between the United Nations (UN) and the African Union (AU) is essential to achieve strategic convergence, coherence and effective solutions to Africa’s complex peace and security challenges. This article analyzes the key challenges in the UN - AU partnership for peacekeeping, including the UN - AU frameworks, policies and strategies in implementing the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda to establish equal, full and constructive participation of women in the peacekeeping process. The authors identify key challenges in the UN - AU partnership for peacekeeping and assess the effectiveness of the mechanisms and tools of this partnership in the field of maintaining peace and security. The implementation of the WPS agenda in Africa in 2003-2022 is discussed in detail. The empirical basis for the research was drawn from the UN peacekeeping website database, official AU documents, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions, and AU and UN statistics on the gender composition of key UN peacekeeping missions during the period under review. This study employs quantitative methods of assessment and comparative analysis of UN and the AU statistics on women’s participation in African peacekeeping from 2003 to 2022. It focuses on the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) as a case study. The article concludes that there is a direct link between the deteriorating security situation in Africa, the effective implementation of the WPS agenda, and the level of strategic partnership between the UN and the AU.

This study examines the peacekeeping experience of the African Union (AU), which claims to be the main security provider on the African continent. Based on the case study method, the principle of historicism and a chronological approach, the author proposes a classification and a comprehensive analysis of the AU operations, from the first to the current missions. The aim of the research is to provide a balanced characterisation of the AU in conflict resolution by describing both the missions and the external environment in which they have been deployed, and by abstracting from the deliberately negative connotations associated with assessments of the potential of regional security forces. It analyses the dynamics, legal frameworks, characteristics and outcomes of deployed peacekeeping operations, both under the auspices of the AU alone (in Burundi, Comoros, Sudan/Darfur, Somalia) and in cooperation with the UN and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) (in Darfur, Mali, Central African Republic, CAR). As a result of the study, the author describes the key parameters of established models of African conflict resolution. The experience and practice of the AU - UN interaction show that the AU is ready to quickly respond to emerging crises and to contain bloodshed, often in the absence of peace processes and well before the UN intervention. The current format of interaction between the two organizations demonstrates the readiness of the UN to deploy its own contingents once the “hot” phase of the conflict is over and conditions for political dialogue are formed. However, with the launch of the first and so far only hybrid UN - AU mission (UNAMID) a new model of cooperation is gradually emerging that complements the existing simple “division of labor.” The purely regional format of peacekeeping stems from the potential of regional actors. The African Union, as a continental regional organization, plays a crucial role in maintaining the regional security regime, while sub-regional organizations carry out operational functions on the basis of regional security arrangements. The author assesses the peacekeeping missions carried out and highlights the challenges faced by African peacekeepers in their work.

This study examines the peacekeeping activities of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in resolving the Nigerian crisis. On May 30, 1967 the eastern part of Nigeria, the self-proclaimed Republic of Biafra, tried to secede from Nigeria. This led to a civil war that lasted from July 6, 1967 to January 15, 1970. Biafra’s army was defeated and capitulated. The reference to the history of the OAU peacekeeping experience is relevant, because it can be applied to the settlement of contemporary crises and conflicts in Africa. The author was guided by the principles of historicism, scientific objectivity and reliance on sources. The aim of the article is to clarify the nature and methods of the OAU’s peacekeeping activities, to identify internal and external factors that hindered the achievement of peace, and to assess the effectiveness of the organization’s peacekeeping efforts. The article uses for the first time information and analytical memos of Soviet diplomats found in the Foreign Policy Archive of the Russian Federation (AVP RF) on the OAU’s activities to stop the civil war in Nigeria. The author concludes that the Nigerian crisis was a unique international conflict for the Cold War period. The motives of the external actors were primarily determined by geopolitical aspirations and national interests, rather than bloc solidarity. The author identifies factors that negatively affected the OAU’s potential as a peacemaker: a split among African countries (four of which recognized Biafra’s independence) and competition from Great Britain, which vigorously promoted its own peacekeeping agenda. The OAU’s decisions were not binding on member states; it had no effective mechanism for implementing them, and it had no armed forces of its own that could be used to disengage the warring parties. The OAU succeeded in diplomatically securing overwhelming African support for Nigeria’s territorial integrity, though its mediation efforts failed to achieve peace. The Biafra leadership was not going to capitulate while there was still room for resistance and the federal government was not inclined to question the country’s territorial integrity. The results of the OAU’s peacekeeping can be assessed as positive: it prevented the legitimization of separatist Biafra, which could have had a domino effect with disastrous consequences for the entire African continent.

-

-