Vol 23, No 3 (2023): Peacekeeping and the Global South

This paper describes the contours of a research program on peacekeeping and peacebuilding, representing the interests of Non-Western countries (the world’s majority). The article is based on both individual developments of its expert authors in the theory and practice of peacekeeping, international law and development cooperation, as well as on generalized conclusions of eight international workshops on Non-Western peacekeeping, held by the Department of Theory and History of International Relations of the RUDN University in 2020-2021 with the participation of leading Russian and international experts. Particular attention is paid to the current moment in international peacekeeping associated with the “power transit” (from the United States to China, and more broadly, from the West to the Non-West) and the power vacuum observed in a number of regions. Conclusions are drawn about the crisis of humanitarian intervention and the system of liberal peacekeeping in general. At the same time, the remaining instruments of Western structural power in the field of peacekeeping are examined in detail, covering both personnel representation in the UN and the practice of ‘penholding,’ as well as the discursive hegemony of the “Collective West.” The main directions in the development of Non-Western academic discourse in the field of peacemaking and peacebuilding are explored in the context of building a multipolar world. Special attention is paid to the problems of regional human rights systems in the context of the protection of civilians and post-conflict peacebuilding. The study concludes that Non-Western countries have a significant influence on the formation of international norms in the field of peacekeeping (rule-changers), but so far do not act as norm-setting actors in world politics (rule-makers).

In the course of its postcolonial development, the African continent has faced many challenges, ranging from socio-economic crises to political instability and the proliferation of terrorism. The lack of security, which remains a source of constant concern for Africans, and the gradual disengagement of the international community, primarily the United Nations (UN), from armed involvement in the resolution of military conflicts on the continent in the 1990s, led to the emergence of the concept of “African solutions to African problems.” The phrase, which reflects the determination of Africans to solve their problems without the participation of external actors, has become a source of their pride; however, the possibility and ability of the inhabitants of the continent to implement this approach still raises justified doubts for a number of reasons that are to be discussed in this paper. The concept of “African solutions to African problems” has now become the main principle that determines the level and nature of the peacekeeping activities of the African Union (AU) and African regional blocs; the verbal adherence of the AU member states to this maxim has been noted by many Russian and foreign researchers. However, a comprehensive analysis of the reasons for the unsuccessful implementation of this concept has not yet been carried out by Russian scholars, so the present article aims to fill this gap. In particular, the paper examines attempts of Africans to solve their problems in the field of security independently. The study allows us to claim that the African continent, primarily due to its insufficient integration and lack of consensus on a number of issues of political development and security, is not yet ready to carry out full-fledged peacekeeping operations without external support, although the gradual acquisition of relevant experience, the decrease in economic dependence on the West, and the diversification of foreign policy will contribute to laying a solid foundation for the idea of “African solutions to African problems.”

The conflict in the Central African Republic (CAR) has attracted international attention since the early 2000s. The African Union, the United Nations (UN) and the French Republic have all been involved in trying to help resolve the conflict. Since 2018, Russia has been actively involved in resolving the conflict in the Central African Republic. The government and people of the CAR have repeatedly expressed their dissatisfaction with the functioning of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA) contingent and, conversely, expressed their appreciation for the Russian military specialists stationed in the CAR. The author attempts to compare the effectiveness of the UN peacekeeping contingent (MINUSCA) and Russian military specialists operating under the auspices of the Officers Union for International Security (OUIS), based on the essential unity of purpose of these forces. Based on an analysis of data on state control in the CAR and violent incidents from 2014 to 2022, the author concludes that the Russian contingent is more effective in providing security and strengthening the state in the CAR (tasks also outlined in the MINUSCA mandate). The author also analyzes the problems in the functioning of the UN peacekeeping contingents, highlighting their systemic and structural shortcomings. The main shortcoming, however, in his view, is the UN’s commitment to a liberal approach that challenges the sovereignty of the host state. The Russian realist approach, by contrast, focuses on sovereignty and its power component. Thus, the actions of the Russians in the CAR can be studied within the paradigm of “illiberal” peacekeeping.

The practice of the functioning of the United Nations and the actual mechanisms of peacekeeping differ significantly from the theoretical ideas about them. Anna Mikhailovna Evstigneeva, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations (UN), who has been dealing with peacekeeping issues for many years, answers a number of important questions about contemporary peacekeeping and peacebuilding in her interview. She argues that while the West is building a “rules-based order,” for Russia the rules are the UN Charter. The key to ensuring the effectiveness of an international organization, according to A.M. Evstigneeva, is the ability of the parties to reach mutually beneficial solutions and to take each other’s interests into account. The rest is a “superstructure,” which, however, is partially enshrined in the doctrine. Dozens of factors (dialogue with civil society, gender, climate, etc.) play a special role, which over time become universal. Often, the beautiful Western theories of liberal peacebuilding do not stand up to the harsh reality; and in a number of cases there is silence on the part of decision-makers about the real situation on the ground. This interview highlights the challenges of the existing system of international peacekeeping in the context of the formation of a multipolar world.

In recent decades, “statebuilding” policies in the Greater Middle East have been used by Washington as a tool for forging an “American empire” based on unequal relations between the U.S. and its dependent regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. At the same time, current research focuses mainly on the instruments for implementing these policies and ensuring the acceptance of new political and economic institutions by the local population. Unlike the established approaches, the author examines Washington’s statebuilding efforts as a specific practice of legitimacy aimed at entrenching sovereign inequality and institutionalizing the US political control over “client-regimes.” The study draws on the theoretical legacy of the English school, which views “legitimacy” as a phenomenon inextricably linked with “international society,” comprising a group of states bound by common goals, institutions, and values. The legitimation strategies adopted by members of this society involve the performance of various international roles through which states acquire recognized statuses, rights and obligations. Focusing on the US roles such as “imperial power” and “patron,” the author concludes that Washington’s statebuilding efforts were aimed at linking the US interventionism in Afghanistan and Iraq with the collective goals of international society, and thus served to legitimize inequitable relations with “client-states” under the formal legal equality of members of international society. Therefore, the application of the proposed approach helps to shed light on the underexplored aspects of the legitimizing instruments of the US dominance and the means of institutionalizing sovereign inequality inherent in the “American empire” in the 21st century.

Asia is now a central part of world politics, where the interests of a number of global and regional actors have collided, including India, China, Japan, the United States and Russia. With the collapse of the socialist bloc and the end of the Cold War, the U.S. embarked on a new security policy, changed its priorities, promoting a new balance of power and defining a new role for itself in the post-bipolar world. India, on the other hand, has strengthened its position in the Asian region thanks to its rapid economic growth, huge domestic market, modernization of armed forces, and practice of democratization. Given India’s transformation and the strategic importance of the Indian Ocean and its maritime transport routes, Washington has become interested in strengthening ties with New Delhi. As a result, India - U.S. relations are moving from the estrangement of the past to the strategic engagement of the present. Since 2004, when the document entitled “Next Step towards Strategic Partnership” was adopted, the two countries have been experiencing a phase of deep strategic convergence. This is particularly true in the area of security and defense. In the present study the author argues that Indo-US defense agreements stimulate India’s offensive power, while negatively affecting regional security in South Asia and especially Pakistan’s security. In the milieu of research methodology, the author uses the methods of content analysis, event analysis, and problem-chronological method.

At the end of the 20th century, many researchers had envisioned a world where countries shift from political and military competition towards economic competition. However, the prospect of a world without conflict was short-lived, as the concerns about political tensions were revived in the early 21st century. Great powers such as the United States, China and Russia, have all shifted their focus to Asia, in particular the Indo-Pacific region. As a developing country in this region, Vietnam has its reasons to pay close attention to the competition among these great powers. Based on the theory of defensive realism, the author examines the reorientation of the US, Chinese and Russian foreign policy towards the Indo-Pacific region from Vietnam’s perspective. It shows that the US pivot to the region is set to challenge the rise of China and to maintain the US position as the leader of the world, China’s expanding influence is to reclaim its historical position in the region and Russia seeks to diversify its political and economic relations. In this context, Vietnam should maintain its multi-vector foreign policy, balancing the interests of several countries. In addition, Vietnam needs to strengthen its position in the global economy through participation in new-generation free trade agreements, expand the scope and forms of its diplomacy, and play a more active role in the global community. All these, in the author’s opinion, will enable Vietnam to strengthen its position in the global economy and boost its diplomatic activities.

-

-