PROLOGUE
Peacekeeping operations have long been recognized as the pinnacle of international cooperation with the express purpose of restoring stability and security in conflict areas.
However, closer inspection revealed that the successes of these operations were often exaggerated and may mask the strategic interests of the great powers. This essay critically examines the limits and hidden goals of peacekeeping and argues that ‘peace from below’ is a more sustainable and equitable approach to peace building. Drawing on theoretical frameworks such as realism, neocolonialism and liberalism, this essay advocates local ownership and grassroots initiatives as the best means of achieving lasting peace.
Realism, neo-colonialism and the hidden scheme of peacekeeping
According to realist theory, the state is a rational actor that prioritizes its own national interests over altruistic pursuits (Mearsheimer, 2001). Within this theoretical framework, peacekeeping can be viewed as a means by which powerful states advance their strategic interests. In addition, neocolonial theory assumes that former colonial powers maintain economic, political and cultural control over former colonies (Nkrumah, 1965). From this perspective, peacekeeping can be seen as a modern manifestation of colonialism, allowing powerful states to maintain their influence in postcolonial countries.
For example, the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH), established in 2004 in response to political instability and violence, has sought to perpetuate Haiti’s dependence on foreign aid and its status quo of political and economic conquest. These theoretical perspectives shed light on the often-overlooked motivations behind peacekeeping and their
inability to promote long-term peace.
Liberalism , Alongside the promise of peace from below
In contrast to realism and neocolonialism, liberalism sees more potential in international cooperation and peacebuilding (Doyle, 1986). Peace from below emerges as an alternative approach within this paradigm that emphasizes local ownership, grassroots initiative, and participatory decision-making. This approach can promote lasting peace by prioritizing the voices of those directly affected by conflict and challenging the hegemonic narratives that have long dominated international peace efforts.
Community-based reconciliation processes such as Rwanda’s Gachaka Tribunal are examples of bottom-up peace initiatives. These courts sought to address the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide through locally administered restorative justice (Clark, 2010). Another example is the work of local peacebuilding organizations in Colombia, which have played an
important role in fostering dialogue, trust-building and reconciliation between parties to conflict (Rettberg, 2012).
Peace from Below and the Way Forward
Embracing peace from below as an alternative to traditional peacekeeping has several advantages. First, it prioritizes local ownership, empowering communities to shape their own destinies, and rooting peacebuilding efforts in the unique social, cultural and political contexts of the affected regions. guaranteed. Interventions are more likely to be successful because
they are tailored to the specific needs and desires of the local population (Lederach, 1997).
Second, peace from below is more likely to address the root causes of conflict such as systemic poverty, political marginalization and social injustice. These initiatives can foster longterm change by engaging local actors in the peacebuilding process and breaking the cycles of violence and dependence that often plague peacekeeping (Ramsbotham, Woodhouse). &
Miall, 2011).
Finally, peace from below can challenge the dominant narrative of powerful states and promote a more equitable and inclusive approach to global peacebuilding (Richmond, 2011). This approach will help move the international community’s understanding of peace and conflict resolution away from externally-led, top-down processes and toward a more collaborative, bottom-up approach that recognizes the expertise and institutions of local communities.
Conclusion
Finally, the accomplishments of peacekeeping operations are often exaggerated, and their real motivations are obscured through a distorted narrative. This essay has verified the restrictions of conventional peacekeeping interventions and highlighted the ability of peace from beneath as a sustainable and equitable technique through inspecting those operations via the lenses of Realism, Neo-Colonialism, and Liberalism.
References
Clark, P. (2010). The Gacaca Courts, Post-Genocide Justice and
Reconciliation in Rwanda: Justice without Lawyers. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Doyle, M. W. (1986). Liberalism and World Politics. American Political
Science Review, 80(4), 1151-1169.
Fatton, R. (2007). Haiti: The Saturnalia of Emancipation and the
Vicissitudes of Predatory Rule. Third World Quarterly, 28(1), 115-133.
Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in
Divided Societies. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York:
W. W. Norton & Company.
Nkrumah, K. (1965). Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism. London: Thomas Nelson & Sons.
Ramsbotham, O., Woodhouse, T., & Miall, H. (2011). Contemporary Conflict
Resolution. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Rettberg, A. (2012). Colombia: A Reluctant Pioneer in Peacebuilding. In A.
Langer & G. K. Brown (Eds.), Building Sustainable Peace: Timing and Sequencing of Post-Conflict Reconstruction and Peacebuilding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Richmond, O. P. (2011). A Post-Liberal Peace. London: Routledge.
#Arcticuniversityoftromso #UIT #Musicasatoolofactivism #Tromsouniversitu #Tromso