PEACEKEEPINGCANADA.COM
CANADIANS 4 PEACEKEEPING
Talking Points:
UN PEACEKEEPING’S
COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES
NOTE: The following talking points are meant to facilitate discussion on issues related to
Canada’s commitment to United Nations peace operations. They are based on remarks given
April 27 by Dominic Leger at a presentation on Parliament Hill to the All Party Committee on the
Prevention of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. These talking points do not necessarily
reflect the views and opinions of the Canadians for Peacekeeping campaign or individual
campaign participants.
1. Experience and Know-How
Since 1945, UN peacekeepers have undertaken close to 65 field missions in all
parts of the world and very different environments.
Far different from 1st generation peacekeeping, today’s multidimensional peace
operations undertake a whole range of activities to stabilize a region or a country.
In addition to the security dimension, peace operations have have been
mandated to undertake a diverse range of activities, including
-
coordinating humanitarian aid
protecting civilians
disarming and reintegrating former combatants
reforming the security sector
reintegrating child soldiers
strengthening state structures
arresting war criminals and handing them over to international criminal
courts
-
helping to rebuild local infrastructure
supporting elections
training law enforcement and police forces
By having intervened in numerous conflicts UN peacekeeping has acquired a
range of expertise, both civilian and military that is second to none.
2. Civilian capacity
One of the limits of peace operations undertaken by regional organizations such
as NATO or the EU is the fact that their capacities in terms of civilian
deployments are a lot less than what the UN can deploy in the field to ensure that
all the aspects of the mission are fully staffed and functional.
3. Effectiveness
During the last five years, many studies have demonstrated that UN
peacekeeping works.
In 2005, the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization in the US
examined the UN’s role in State-Building.1 The study compared eight missions
conducted by the US and eight by the UN. Information used included the number
of military and police deployed, financial assistance, length of intervention and
the objectives set.
The study showed that out of eight situations managed by the UN, seven were
resolved, and of the eight situations managed by the US, four were resolved. It
concluded that UN-missions had a higher success rate and provided the most
suitable institutional framework for nation-building missions.
1
James Dobbins et al., The UN’S Role in Nation-Building, From the Congo to Iraq, Santa Monica, Rand,
2005
Also in 2005, the Human Security Report Project, now based at Simon Fraser
University in Vancouver, published a study on the reduction of conflicts and
human rights violations in the world between 1990 and 2005.2 The study
concluded that UN interventions were an important factor in reducing
international violence.
4. Cost Effectiveness
A study by the RAND Corporation in 2007 concluded that when you compare
costs to the UN per peacekeeper to the costs of troops deployed by the United
States, other developed states, NATO or regional organizations, the United
Nations is the least expensive option by far.3
The US Government Accountability Office estimated in 2006 that it would cost
the United States approximately twice as much as the UN to conduct a
peacekeeping operation similar to the one in Haiti (MINUSTAH).4
In 2004, a survey by Oxford University economists found that international
military intervention under Chapter VII of the UN Charter is the most costeffective means of preventing a return to war in post-conflict societies.5
5. Legitimacy
The UN’s most important comparative advantage as a peacekeeping
organization is that it’s the only organization through which the forces of ALL the
2
Human Security Report 2005, War and Peace in the 21st Century, Human Security Centre, Vancouver,
2005, p. 15
3
4
James Dobbins et al., “The Beginner’s Guide to Nation-Building”, RAND Corporation, 2007.
$876 million compared to the UN budgeted $428 million for the first 14 months of the mission. From:
“Peacekeeping: Cost Comparison of Actual UN and Hypothetical U.S. Operations in Haiti”, United States
Government Accountability Office, Report to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
Committee on International Relations, House of Representatives, GAO-06-331, February 2006, p. 7.
5
Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffler, “The Challenge of Reducing the Global Incidence of Civil War”, Centre
for the Study of African iii. Economies, Department of Economics, Oxford University, 26 March 2004.
major powers, including the rising and regional powers, can jointly participate in
providing stability.
The international and legal character of UN Security Council-authorized
peacekeeping missions provides unparalleled legitimacy to any UN peace
operation.
Only the UN offers the option of a politically diverse but operationally capable
mission – but only if major powers and other powers, like Canada, invest in UN
operations.