Pragmatism over principle: US intervention and burden shifting in Somalia, 1992–1993

The conventional wisdom about the 1992 US intervention in Somalia is that it was a quintessentially humanitarian mission pushed by President George H. W. Bush. This article challenges that interpretation, drawing on newly declassified documents. The Somalia intervention, I argue, was largely a pragmatic response to concerns held by the US military. In late 1992, as the small UN mission in Somalia was collapsing, senior American generals worried about being drawn into the resulting vacuum. Hence they reluctantly recommended a robust US intervention, in the expectation that this would allow the UN to assemble a larger peacekeeping force that would take over within months. The intervention ultimately failed, but the military learned useful lessons from this experience on how to achieve smoother UN handoffs in the future and thus effectively shift longer-term stabilisation burdens to the international community.Open access publication was made possible by an EC Career Integration Grant

Community based rehabilitation: a strategy for peace-building

BACKGROUND: Certain features of peace-building distinguish it from peacekeeping, and make it an appropriate strategy in dealing with vertical conflict and low intensity conflict. However, some theorists suggest that attempts, through peace-building, to impose liberal values upon non-democratic cultures are misguided and lack an ethical basis. DISCUSSION: We have been investigating the peace-building properties of community based approaches to disability in a number of countries. This paper describes the practice and impact of peace-building through Community Based Rehabilitation (CBR) strategies in the context of armed conflict. The ethical basis for peace-building through practical community initiatives is explored. A number of benefits and challenges to using CBR strategies for peace-building purposes are identified. SUMMARY: During post-conflict reconstruction, disability is a powerful emotive lever that can be used to mobilize cooperation between factions. We suggest that civil society, in contrast to state-level intervention, has a valuable role in reducing the risks of conflict through community initiatives

A NOTE ON THE ECONOMICS OF STANDBY VERSUS STANDING PEACEKEEPING FORCES

With UN peacekeeping activities in recent years having become more numerous, complex and costly, alternative means of responding to emerging crises and conflicts are being proposed and considered, along with their financial costs and funding. This paper analyzes the economic costs and benefits of recent options from a global resource point of view. It is concluded that standby forces provided by Member States to the UN, such as the multinational Stand-by Forces High Readiness Brigade for UN Operations (SHIRBRIG) and the more recent European Union (EU) Rapid Reaction Force (RRF), appear presently to be economically the most efficient means of providing UN peacekeeping. Standby forces, acknowledged by the UN as a feasible alternative to a UN standing army or police force, are economically the most efficient basically because they utilize more fully the existing military resources of Member States, rather than require major additional new resources for peacekeeping.Peacekeeping, Standing army, Standby arrangement, United Nations,