United Nations Peace Keeping Operations In Rwanda In The Light Of Feminism And Realism

Table of Contents

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………..

Chapter 1: Basic Facts about the UN………………………………………………………

1.1 United Nations as an international organization………………………………….. ………..

1.2 UN's role in Peacekeeping and peace enforcement…………………………………………

Chapter 2……………………………………………………………………………………..

2.1 Peacekeeping in the Cold War Era (traditional)……………………………………………

2.2 Post-Cold War Peacekeeping (Complex and innovative)…………………………………

2.3 Today's Peacekeeping Operations…………………………………………………………..

2.4 Why Peacekeeping fails? …………………………………………………………………………………………

Chapter 3………………………………………………………………………………………

3.1 United Nations mission in Rwanda (UNAMIR) historical overview………………………

3.2 UNAMIR in the light of feminism and realism (International Relations Theory)…………

3.3 Research elements: inquiries, facts and figures, case study……………………………….

Chapter 4

4.1 Summary of research results…………………………………………………………….

4.2 Conclusion of thesis……………………………………………………………………..

Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………..

Introduction

The world changed dramatically after WW II, and conflicts which could bring tragedies and lots of deaths were not on the list of priorities of the new international community formed. Peacekeeping was now a highly established priority which should be taken into account for the security of the entire international community. The United Nations were sort of responsible for this issue, although they failed in many situations to really bring peace. The theory did not apply, and conflicts totally flourished. Although they were not a high scale, affecting the international community, they existed, based on several reasons such as ethnic problems.

This is the cause that generated and required the redefinition of peacekeeping, its advantages and a strong analysis on its real utility. Actually, this is the purpose of my paper: to analyze the United Nations, its operations to maintain and enforce peace and the changes it had to suffer in order to re-shape peacekeeping for the newly formed international community after the Cold War period.

After WW II, the international community vowed ”never again” – but that promise was never kept. Since the end of WW II, the world has witnessed over 250 conflicts of an international and non-international character, as well as purely domestic conflicts and other forms of tyrannical regime victimization. The estimated casualties for these conflicts are between a low and of 70 million and a high end of 170 million. Whatever the actual figure, the numbers are mind-boggling. The lower-end estimate alone is cumulatively equivalent to the casualties of World Wars I and II. How did this happen? Possibly because it ocurred one conflict at a time, with each conflict building within world consciousness a great ability withstand more human tragedies. We simply become more habituated to such conflicts and to a high number of victims much as a drug addict becomes less affected as his/her drug consumption becomes higher.

So, taking into consideration these changes that strongly affected the international community, my paper focuses on the purpose and utility of the United Nations before and after the Cold War period and tries to compare these two very different moments of history in the light of peacekeeping operations. I therefore chose to talk about Rwanda as a case study which can prove the feeble actual utility of UN after the reconstruction of the map that took place after WWII and especially after the Cold War.

We may conclude that one important factor in the failure to prevent genocide in Rwanda was already made in the making of a far weaker mandate, lacking the use of force instruction that was requested, needed and proposed by the Rwandan parties of the peace agreement.

The first chapter of my book takes into account important and basic information about the UN, its organization, its role in keeping peace and enforcement, analyzing its charter, its principles and the membership of this international organization. In this first part of my paper I also tried to point out the main organs of the United Nations and the functions and powers of each of them. Then, I also tried to explain the actual role played by UN in relation to the peacekeeping and peace enforcement.

Then, the second chapter of my paper deals with peacekeeping before and after the Cold War. I illustrated, through several sub-chapters, a sort of analysis whose purpose is to compare peacekeeping and its utility during the two periods I already mentioned. I also brought into account the main changes that peacekeeping dealt with after the Cold War in order to adapt itself to the newly formed international community.

The third part of my paper follows the analysis of the case study I chose, which is Rwanda. I started this chapter with a brief history of Rwanda and the genocide problem from 1994 on which I mainly focused my paper. The purpose was to establish to what extent the United Nations failed to avoid the genocide and to enforce peace in the area.

As expected, my last chapter discusses the conclusions of my paper, focusing on the case study I chose and the inability of UN to maintain and enforce peace in Rwanda. I tried to offer an objective viewpoint on the issue and to provide a clear and well documented analysis on the genocide of Rwanda from the perspective of the peacekeeping and peace enforcement.

Chapter 1

Basic Facts about the United Nations

UN`s role in Peace keeping and peace enforcement

The United Nations role regarding the security at an international level is crucial for the entire international community. Although the measures taken and the means of enforcing peace changed with the passing of the years, its functions and power still have an important word to say. With the coming of a new century, the United Nations has to undergo some major changes illustrated and generated through the dramatic transitions which affected our era.

The United Nations has no independent military capability, and very modest funds. Its influence derives of the values it represents, its e in helping to set and sustain global norms and international law, its ability to stimulate global concern and action, and the trust inspired by its practical work on the ground to improve people`s lives. The effectiveness of the United Nations in all of these endeavors on partnerships: among governments, civil society groups and the private sector, and most of all among people, reaching across the lines that might otherwise divide.

Regarding the name of the ”United Nations”, it was firstly used by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the ”Declaration by United Nations” on 1st January 1942, during the Second World War. The construction of such an international organization was seen as profoundly necessary after the two world wars which managed to provoke such tragedies and losses of human lives. However, before the United Nations even existed, the world felt the need to have such an organization in 1919, called the League of Nations, which was basically built on the same structures and with the same purposes.

The forerunner of the United Nations was the League of Nations, an organizations conceived in similar circumstances during the First World War, and established in 1919 under the Treaty of Versailles „to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security„. The International Labor Organization was also created under the Treaty of Versailles as an affiliated agency of the League. The League of Nations ceased its activities after failing to prevent the Second World War.

But, officially, the United Nations was born on 24 October 1945 , when the Charter had been ratified by China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States and a majority of other signatories, Each year, on 24 of October takes place the celebration of the United Nations.

What About the United Nations Charter?

The Charter of the United Nations is the foundation document for all the UN work. The UN was established to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” and one of its main purposes is to maintain international peace and security.

The Charter is the constituting instrument of the Organization, setting out the rights and obligations of Member States, and establishing the United Nations organs and procedures. An international treaty, the Charter codifies the major principles of international relations – from the sovereign equality of States to the prohibition of the use of force in international relations.

If we discuss the purpose and principles of the United Nations, as they are found in the Charter, we have to take into consideration the following aspects:

The maintenance of international peace and security;

The development of friendly relations among nations following the rule of respect for the principle of equality and self-determination of peoples;

The cooperation in order to solve international economic, social, cultural and humanitarian problems. The UN also has to promote the respect for the basic human rights and the essential freedoms.

The United Nation also has to engage in being a real center for harmonizing the actions of nations in attaining these common ends.

The United Nations acts in accordance with the following principles:

It is based on the sovereign equality of all its Members;

All Members are to fulfill in good faith their Charter obligations;

They are to settle their international disputes by peaceful means and without endangering international peace and security, and justice;

They are to refrain from the threat or use of force against any other state;

They are to give the United Nations every assistance in any actions it takes in accordance with the Charter;

Nothing in the Charter is to authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.

Taking into consideration the membership of the United Nations, it is open to all peace-loving nations which accept the obligations of the Charter and are willing to follow these instructions.

The General Assembly admits new Member States on the recommendation of the Security Council. The Charter provides for the suspension or expulsion of a Member for violation of the principles of the Charter, but no such actions has ever been taken. So, according to the Article 10 (Article 10: The General Assembly may discuss any questions or any matters within the scope of the present Charter or relating to the powers and functions of any organs provided for in the present Charter, and, except as provided in Article 12, may make recommendations to the Members of the United Nations or to the Security Council or to both on any such questions or matters) and 14 (Subject to the provisions of Article 12, the General Assembly may recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations among nations, including situations resulting from a violation of the provisions of the present Charter setting forth the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations) of the UN Charter, it is all based on recommendation, and we can basically assert that this is one of the blind spots of the Charter.

The United Nations cannot oose blige nations to keep their promises, but they can only make recommendations. This recommendatory nature of the Charter has been highly developed and sustained by the UN, and this is one of the problems that could strongly affect the maintenance of peace and peace enforcement in one area.

In order to draw a short conclusion, we could say that we already identified the main flaw of the UN system which is its non-binding character related. Therefore, it is absolutely normal and obvious that the quality of peacens or matters) and 14 (Subject to the provisions of Article 12, the General Assembly may recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations among nations, including situations resulting from a violation of the provisions of the present Charter setting forth the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations) of the UN Charter, it is all based on recommendation, and we can basically assert that this is one of the blind spots of the Charter.

The United Nations cannot oose blige nations to keep their promises, but they can only make recommendations. This recommendatory nature of the Charter has been highly developed and sustained by the UN, and this is one of the problems that could strongly affect the maintenance of peace and peace enforcement in one area.

In order to draw a short conclusion, we could say that we already identified the main flaw of the UN system which is its non-binding character related. Therefore, it is absolutely normal and obvious that the quality of peacekeeping and peace enforcement are strongly affected.

As for the official languages, the official ones are Chinese, English, French Russian and Spanish. Arabic has been added as an official language of the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council.

The Structure of UN as an international organization

The six main organs of the United Nations are the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, the International Court of Justice and Secretariat. The United Nations family is much larger, encompassing 15 agencies and several programs and bodies.

The General Assembly

The General Assembly is the main deliberative organ. It is composed of representatives of all Member States, each of which has one vote. Decisions on important questions, such as those on peace and security, admission of new Members and budgetary matters, require a two-thirds majority. Decisions on other questions are by simple majority.

Taking into account the UN Charter, we may observe that the General Assembly is supposed to have the following main attributions. So, it has to consider and make recommendations on the principles of cooperation in the maintenance of international peace and security, including the principles governing disarmament and arms regulations. We also confront with a huge problem here. We said earlier that the General Assembly is the main deliberative organ, which means that there is no actual communication between the assembly and other UN organs such as the Secretary Council. Of course, this lack of cooperation also brought numerous problems regarding the maintenance of peace. And of course, as we already mentioned in the previous pages, we also deal here with the recommendatory nature of the UN organs. The General Assembly will only be able to make recommendations for the peaceful settlement of any situation, regardless of origin, which might impair friendly relations among nations;

The presence of the General Assembly is highly important within the organization of the UN due to the importance of its decisions, but this singular position occupied by the General Assembly is also highly problematic when it comes to actually take some decisions, because the other UN organs have no authority. The missions of the General Assembly are numerous such as to discuss any question relating to international peace and security and, except where a dispute or situation is being discussed by the Security Council, to make recommendations on it; to discuss and, with the same exception, make recommendations on any question within the scope of the Charter or affecting the powers and functions of any organ of the United Nations; to initiate studies and make recommendations to promote international political cooperation, the development and codification of international law, the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, and international collaboration in economic, social, cultural, educational and health fields.

The attributions of the General Assembly actually go so far that they also have to choose the non-permanent members of the Security Council, the members of the Economic and Social Council and those members of the Trusteeship Council that are elected; to elect jointly with the Security Council the Judges of the International Court of Justice; and, on the recommendation of the Security Council, to appoint the Secretary-General.

The Security Council

The main responsibility of the Security Council is based on the maintenance of international peace and security. It is formed by 15 members from which 5 permanent ones: China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, and 10 elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms.

Each member has one vote. Decisions on procedural matters are made by an affirmative vote of at least 9 of the 15 members. Decisions on substantive matters require nine votes, including the concurring votes of all five permanent members. This is the rule of „great Power unanimity„, often referred to as the „veto„ power. The permanent members are very important regarding the power of decision-making.

If a permanent member does not agree with a decision, it can cast a negative vote, and this act has power of veto. All five permanent members have exercised the right of veto at one time or another. If a permanent member does not fully agree with a decision but does not wish to cast its veto, it may abstain.

Moreover, the decisions of the Security Council are again highly important. While other organs of the United Nations make recommendations to governments, the Council alone has the power to take decisions which Member States are obligated under the Charter to carry out.

Then, the primary functions of the Security Council are the following:

To maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations;

To investigate any dispute or situation which might lead to international friction;

To recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement;

To formulate plans for establishing a system to regulate armaments;

To determine the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to recommend what action should be taken;

To call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving the use of force to prevent or stop aggression;

To take military action against an aggressor;

To recommend the admission of new Members;

To exercise the trusteeship functions of the United Nations in „strategic area„;

To recommend to the General Assembly the appointment of the Secretary-General and, together with the Assembly, to elect the Judges of the International Court of Justice.

The Security Council is so organized as to be able to function continuously, and a representative of each of its members must be present at all times at United Nations Headquarters.

If a complaint regarding a threat to peace or a possible conflict is brought before it, the Council`s first reaction is to try to establish a cordial agreement using peaceful means. The Council may set forth principles for a peaceful settlement. There are also situations in which the Council is the one who undertakes investigation and mediation between the parts involved in a possible conflict. It may dispatch a mission, appoint special representatives or request the Secretary-General to use his good offices.

If this potential conflict finally degenerates into a conflict, the Council`s main responsibility and concern is to bring as soon as possible the conflict to an end. The council may issue ceasefire directives that can be instrumental in preventing wider hostilities.

However, even with all these good intentions of the UN system and all its organs, when it comes to peace keeping and peace enforcement, things become a little bit foggy. Peacekeeping is not an explicit matter encountered in the Charter, and everything is pretty much interpretable. There are no clear and founded rules and objectives of UN concerning this aspect. Now, of course, in theory, the primary responsibility of the Security Council is the maintenance of international peace and security, and in fulfilling this responsibility, the Council may adopt a range of measures, including the establishment of a UN peacekeeping operation.

According to articles 41 (The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations) and articles 42 (Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations) we may also observe a lack of compulsoriness regarding the states because these two excerpts clearly state that the Security Council and implicitly UN will take no measure involving armed force against nation-states. The only measures will be taken are stated in the article 42 already quotes, involving nothing specific or actually damaging for the nation state in cause. So, again, the UN system is not trenchant enough when it comes to obeying its rules. This is another reason why peacekeeping failed to be established and maintained in many cases during the course of history.

The Economic and Social Council

The Charter established the Economic and Social Council as the principal organ to coordinate the economic, social, and related work of the United Nations and the specialized agencies and institutions – known as the United Nations family of organizations. The Council has 54 members, who serve for three-year terms. Voting in the Council is by simple majority; each member has one vote.

The functions and powers of the Economic and Social Council are:

To serve as the central forum for discussing international economic and socials issues, and for formulating policy recommendations addressed to Member States and the United Nations system;

To make or initiate studies and reports and make recommendations on international economic, social, cultural, educational, health and related matters;

To promote respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms;

To assist in preparing and organizing major international conferences in the economic, social and related fields and promote a coordinated follow-up to these conferences;

To coordinate the activities of the specialized agencies, through consultations with and recommendations to them, and through recommendations to the General Assembly.

Through its discussion of international economic and social issues and its policy recommendations, ECOSOC plays a key role in fostering international cooperation for development and in setting the priorities for action.

The Trusteeship Council

The Trusteeship Council was established by the Charter in 1945 to provide international supervision for 11 Trust Territories placed under the administration of 7 Member States, and ensure that adequate steps were taken to prepare the Territories for self-government or independence. The Charter authorized the Trusteeship Council to examine and discuss reports from the Administering Authority on the political, economic, social and educational advancement of the peoples of Trust Territories; to examine petitions from the Territories; and to undertake special missions to the Territories.

By 1994, all Trust Territories had attained self-government or independence, either as separate States or by joining neighboring independent countries. The last to do so was the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (Palau), which became the 185th Member State.

Its work completed, the Trusteeship Council – consisting of the five permanent members of the Security Council, China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States – has amended its rules of procedure to meet as and where occasion may require.

The International Court of Justice

The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, being located at The Hague, the Netherlands. It settles legal disputes between states and gives advisory opinions to the United Nations and its specialized agencies. Its Statute is an integral part of the United Nations Charter.

The Court is open to all states that are parties to its Statute, which include all Members of the United States and Switzerland. Only states may be pasties in contentious cases before the Court and submit disputes to it. An important thing to be mentioned is that the Court is not open to private persons and entities or international organizations.

The Court`s jurisdiction covers all questions that states refer to it, and all matters provided for in the United Nations Charter, or in the international treaties and conventions. States may bind themselves in advance to accept the jurisdiction of the Court, either by signing a treaty or convention that provides for referral to the Court or by making a declaration to that effect. Such declarations accepting compulsory jurisdiction often contain reservations excluding certain classes of disputes.

The court has 15 members at its disposal which are elected by the General Assembly and the Security Council, voting independently. They are chosen on the basis of their qualifications, and care is taken to ensure that the principal legal systems of the world are represented in the Court No two judges from the same country are allowed to rule. The judges serve for a nine year term and may be re-elected, and they cannot engage in any other occupation during their term of office.

Now, regarding the topic of my paper, the functions and attributions of the International Court of Justice, we are discussing the role of ICTR in punishing the promoters of the Rwandan genocide from 1994. The United Nations Security Council established this tribunal in Resolution 955 in order to judge people who were involved and responsible for the Rwandan genocide and other strong violations of the International law which took place in the Rwandan state during the genocide.

However, the authority of the International Court of Justice has been highly criticized with regard to its procedures. For example, one of the major criticism brought to the Court is certainly related to the „compulsory„ jurisdiction which is limited to cases where both parties have agreed to submit to its decision. So, this automatically means that there is no legal rule which could force the states to obey in case any violation of international law occurs, and that the states are absolutely free to deny the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. Without a binding force, the International Court of Justice fails to accomplish its major purpose, that of punishing the violations of the international law.

The Secretariat

The Secretariat – an international staff working in duty stations around the world – carries out the diverse day-to-day work of the Organization, It services the other principal organs of the United Nations and administers the programs and policies laid down by them.

The duties carried out by the Secretariat are as varied as the problems dealt with by the United Nations. These range from administering peacekeeping operations to mediating international disputes, from surveying economic and social trends to preparing studies on human rights and sustainable development. Secretariat staff also inform the world`s communications media about the work of the United Nations; organize international conferences on issues of worldwide concern; and intercept speeches and translate documents into the Organization`s official languages.

The Budget of the United Nations

The regular budget of the United Nations is approved by the General Assembly for a two-year period. The budget is initially submitted by the Secretary-General and reviewed by the Advisory committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions, made up of 16 experts who are nominated by their governments and elected by the General Assembly but who serve in their personal capacity. (p.19)

The main source of funds for the budget is the contribution of Member States. These are assessed on a scale approved by the Assembly of the recommendation of the Committee on Contributions, made up of 18 experts who serve in their personal capacity and are selected by the General Assembly on the recommendation of its Administrative and Budgetary (Fifth) Committee. (p.20)

The actual role of the Secretary-General

The Charter depicts the Secretary-General as "chief administrative officer" of the Organization, who will be able to act in that capacity and perform "such other functions as are entrusted" to him or her by the Security Council, General Assembly, Economic and Social Council and other United Nations organs. Moreover, the Charter also gives the right to the Secretary-General to "bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security". These guidelines both define the powers of the office and grant it considerable scope for action. The Secretary-General would fail if he did not take careful account of the concerns of Member States, but he must also uphold the values and moral authority of the United Nations, and speak and act for peace, even at the risk, from time to time, of challenging or disagreeing with those same Member States.

The Secretary-General is a symbol of United Nations ideals and a spokesman for the interests of the world's peoples, in particular the poor and vulnerable among them.

Of course that during the history of the United Nations, there were some excellent Secretaries General who leaved their marks upon the entire system with the innovations they actually applied and also due to the reforms they enforced. Two of the familiar names in that sense are definitely Mr. Boutros-Ghali and Kofi Annan who became famous for their actions and interesting ideas they had for a betterment of the UN system.

Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali became the sixth Secretary-General of the United Nations on 1 January 1992, when he began a five-year term. At the time of his appointment by the General Assembly on 3 December 1991, Mr. Boutros-Ghali had been Deputy Prime Minister for Foreign Affairs of Egypt since May 1991 and had served as Minister of State for Foreign Affairs from October 1977 until 1991. Mr. Boutros-Ghali has had a long association with international affairs as a diplomat, jurist, scholar and widely published author. He became a member of the Egyptian Parliament in 1987 and was part of the secretariat of the National Democratic Party from 1980. Until assuming the office of Secretary-General of the United Nations, he was also Vice- President of the Socialist International. He was a member of the International Law Commission from 1979 until 1991, and is a former member of the International Commission of Jurists. He has many professional and academic associations related to his background in law, international affairs and political science, among them, his membership in the Institute of International Law, the International Institute of Human Rights, the African Society of Political Studies and the Académie des sciences morales et politique (Académie française, Paris).

We can also discuss Boutros-Ghali`s major impact regarding the international law. Over four decades, Mr. Boutros-Ghali participated in numerous meetings dealing with international law, human rights, economic and social development, decolonization, the Middle East question, international humanitarian law, the rights of ethnic and other minorities, non-alignment, development in the Mediterranean region and Afro-Arab cooperation.

In September 1978, Mr. Boutros-Ghali attended the Camp David Summit Conference and had a role in negotiating the Camp David accords between Egypt and Israel, which were signed in 1979. He led many delegations of his country to meetings of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, as well as to the Summit Conference of the French and African Heads of State. He also headed Egypt's delegation to the General Assembly sessions in 1979, 1982 and 1990.

The United Nations family of organization

The United Nations family of organizations ( the ”United Nations system” is made up of the United Nations programs and funds (such as UNICEF and UNDP) and the specialized agencies. The programs and funds are subsidiary bodies of the General Assembly. The specialized agencies, linked to the United Nations through special agreements, report to the Economic and Social Council and/or the General Assembly. They have their own governing bodies and budgets, and set their own standards and guidelines.

UN`s role in peace keeping and peace enforcement

One of the primary purposes of the United Nations – and a central part of its mandate – is the maintenance of international peace and security. Since its creation, the United Nations has often been called to prevent disputes from escalating into was, to persuade opposing parties to use the conference table rather than force of arms, or to help restore peace when conflict does break out. Over the decades, the United Nations has helped to end numerous conflicts, often through actions of the Security Council – the primary organ for dealing with issues of international peace and security.

The 1990s have brought major changes in the patterns of conflict an in the international community`s response to them. One of these major changes is certainly related to the nature of the conflicts. More than 90% of the recent conflicts have taken place within, rather than between states. The reason is mainly explained through the reconfiguration of the world map after the two world wars and afterwards the Cold War.

Since the creation of the United Nations in 1945, over 100 major conflicts around the world have left some 20 million dead. The United Nations was rendered powerless to deal with many of these crises because of the vetoes – 279 of them – cast in the Security Council, which were a vivid expression of the divisions of that period. With the end of the cold war there have been no such vetoes since 31 May 1990, and demands on the United Nations have surged. Its security arm, once disabled by circumstances it was not created or equipped to control, has emerged as a central instrument for the prevention and resolution of conflicts and for the preservation of peace.

Therefore, the United Nations has been forced to enhance the range of instruments at its command, and to change its old instruments it used to reinforce peace. Civil conflicts have raised complex issues regarding the response of the international community, including the dilemma of whether to intervene to protect endangered civilians.

Thirteen peace-keeping operations were established between the years 1945 and 1987; 13 others since then. An estimated 528,000 military, police and civilian personnel had served under the flag of the United Nations until January 1992. Over 800 of them from 43 countries have died in the service of the Organization. The costs of these operations have aggregated some $8.3 billion till 1992. The unpaid arrears towards them stand at over $800 million, which represents a debt owed by the Organization to the troop-contributing countries. Peace-keeping operations approved at present are estimated to cost close to $3 billion in the current 12-month period, while patterns of payment are unacceptably slow. Against this, global defence expenditures at the end of the last decade had approached $1 trillion a year, or $2 million per minute.

The Security Council

The first and the most important role of the United Nations Charter – an international treaty – is to obligate Member States to settle their disputes by peaceful means, in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. They are to refrain from the threat or use of force against any state, and may bring any dispute before the Security Council.

The Security Council is the United Nations organ with primary responsibility for maintaining peace and security. Under the Charter, Member States are obliged to accept and carry out its decisions. Recommendations of other United Nations bodies do not have the mandatory force the decisions of the Security Council have, but can influence situations as they express the opinion of the international community.

When a dispute is brought to its attention, the Council usually urges the parties to settle their dispute by peaceful means. It may make recommendations to the parties for a peaceful settlement to use his good offices. In some cases the Council itself undertakes investigation and mediation.

The General Assembly

The United Nations Charter (article 11) empowers the General Assembly to „consider the general principles of cooperation in the maintenance of international peace and security„ and „make recommendations… to the Members or to the Security Council or to both.„ The Assembly offers a means for finding consensus on difficult issues, providing a forum for the airing of grievances and diplomatic exchanges. To foster the maintenance of peace, it has held special sessions on issues such as disarmament, the question of Palestine or the situation in Afghanistan.

Conflict prevention

The main strategies for preventing disputes from escalating into conflict, and for preventing the recurrence of conflict, are preventive diplomacy, preventive deployment and preventive disarmament.

Preventive diplomacy refers to action to prevent disputes from arising, to resolve them before they escalate into conflicts or to limit the spread of conflicts when they occur. It may take the form of mediation, conciliation or negotiation. Early warning is an essential component of prevention, and the United Nations carefully monitors political and other developments around the world to detect threats to international peace and security, thereby enabling the Security Council and the Secretary-General to carry out preventive action.

Complementing preventive diplomacy are preventive deployment and preventive disarmament. Preventive deployment – the fielding of peacekeepers to forestall probable conflict – is intended to provide a „thin blue line„ to help contain conflicts by building confidence in areas of tension.

Preventive disarmament seeks to reduce the number of small arms in conflict-prone regions. Destroying yesterday`s weapons prevents their being used in tomorrow`s wars.

Peacemaking and Peacekeeping

The concept of peace is easy to grasp; that of international security is more complex, for a pattern of contradictions has arisen here as well. As major nuclear Powers have begun to negotiate arms reduction agreements, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction threatens to increase and conventional arms continue to be amassed in many parts of the world. As racism becomes recognized for the destructive force it is and as apartheid is being dismantled, new racial tensions are rising and finding expression in violence.

Member States are keen to participate in peace-keeping operations. Military observers and infantry are invariably available in the required numbers, but logistic units present a greater problem, as few armies can afford to spare such units for an extended period. Member States were requested in 1990 to state what military personnel they were in principle prepared to make available; few replied. I reiterate the request to all Member States to reply frankly and promptly. Stand-by arrangements should be confirmed, as appropriate, through exchanges of letters between the Secretariat and Member States concerning the kind and number of skilled personnel they will be prepared to offer the United Nations as the needs of new operations arise.

Technological advances are altering the nature and the expectation of life all over the globe. The revolution in communications has united the world in awareness, in aspiration and in greater solidarity against injustice. But progress also brings new risks for stability: ecological damage, disruption of family and community life, greater intrusion into the lives and rights of individuals.

Peacemaking refers to the use of diplomatic means to persuade parties in conflict to cease hostilities and to negotiate a peaceful settlement of their dispute. The United Nations provides a various means through which conflicts may be contained and resolved, and their root causes addressed. The Security Council may recommend ways to resolve a dispute or request the Secretary-General`s mediation. The Secretary-General may take diplomatic initiatives to encourage and maintain the momentum of negotiations.

Another interesting definition of what peacemaking represents sounds like this:

Peacemaking is action to bring hostile parties to agreement, essentially through such peaceful means as those foreseen in Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations.

The Secretary-General plays a central role in peacemaking, both personally and by dispatching special envoys or missions for specific task, such as negotiation or fact-finding. Under the Charter, the Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security. The Secretary-General is of the United Nations great assets because in order to help resolve disputes, the Secretary-General may use „good offices„ for mediation or exercise preventive diplomacy due to its undeniable impartiality. In many instances, the Secretary-General has been instrumental in averting a threat to peace or in securing a peace agreement.

On the other hand, the United Nations peacekeeping operations are a crucial instrument at the disposal of the international community to advance international peace and security. The role of peacekeeping was intentionally recognized in 1998, when the United Nations peacekeeping forces received the Nobel Peace prize.

Peace-keeping is the deployment of a United Nations presence in the field, hitherto with the consent of all the parties concerned, normally involving United Nations military and/or police personnel and frequently civilians as well. Peace-keeping is a technique that expands the possibilities for both the prevention of conflict and the making of peace.

The military personnel of peacekeeping operations are voluntarily provided by Member States and are financed by the international community. Participating states are compensated at a standard rate from a special peacekeeping budget.

United Nations operations, because of their universality, offer unique advantages as a means to address conflicts. Their universality adds to their legitimacy and limits the implications for the host country`s sovereignty. Peacekeepers from outside a conflict can foster discussion among warring parties while focusing global attention upon local concerns, opening doors that would otherwise remain closed for collective peace efforts.

Enforcement

Just as diplomacy will continue across the span of all the activities dealt with in the present report so there may not be a dividing line between peacemaking and peacekeeping. Peacemaking is often a prelude to peace-keeping – just as the deployment of a United Nations presence in the field may expand possibilities for the prevention of conflict, facilitate the work of peacemaking and in many cases serve as a prerequisite for peace-building.

Under Chapter VII of the Charter, the Security Council can take enforcement measures to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such measures range from economic sanctions to international military action.

Sanctions

According to the United Nations in its book entitled Basic Facts about the United Nations, we may observe that the Council has resorted to mandatory sanctions as an enforcement tool when peace was threatened and diplomatic efforts had failed. In the last decade, sanctions have been imposed against Iraq, the former Yugoslavia, Libya, Haiti, Liberia, Rwanda, Somalia, UNITA forces in Angola, Sudan, Sierra Leone, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (including Kosovo), Afghanistan, and Ethiopia and Eritrea. The range of sanctions has included comprehensive economic and trade sanctions, or more specific measures such as arms embargoes, travel bans and financial or diplomatic restrictions.

In circumstances when peacemaking requires the imposition of sanctions under Article 41 of the Charter, it is important that States confronted with special economic problems not only have the right to consult the Security Council regarding such problems, as Article 50 provides, but also have a realistic possibility of having their difficulties addressed. I recommend that the Security Council devise a set of measures involving the financial institutions and other components of the United Nations system that can be put in place to insulate States from such difficulties. Such measures would be a matter of equity and a means of encouraging States to cooperate with decisions of the Council.

In general, the use of sanctions seeks to apply pressure on a state or entity to comply with the objectives set by the Security Council without resorting to the use of force. Sanctions thus offer the Council an important tool to enforce its decisions. The universal character of the United Nations makes it an especially appropriate body to establish and monitor sanctions.

At the same time, many states and humanitarian organizations have expressed concerns at the possible adverse impact of sanctions on the most vulnerable segments of the population, such as women and children. Concerns have also been expressed at the negative impact sanctions can have on the economy of third countries, which have to interrupt trade and economic relations with the sanctioned state. (p.78)

However, the sanctions are not at their best. There is still room for improvement, due to the various negative effects of these sanctions.

It is increasingly accepted that the design and application of sanctions need to be improved. The negative effects of sanctions can be reduced either by incorporating humanitarian exceptions directly in Security Council resolutions, or by better targeting them. So-called „smart sanctions„ – which seek to pressure those in power rather than the population at large, thus reducing humanitarian costs – have been gaining support. Smart sanctions may for instance involve freezing the financial assets and blocking the financial transactions of elites or entities whose behavior triggered sanctions in the first place.

The issue of sanctions is pretty much debatable because solutions can be hardly found within the international conflicts. Then, another problem is given by the nature of interventionism. For example, in the case of the 1994 Rwanda genocide which I am discussing in this paper, a coalition of states had been prepared to act in defense of the Tutsi population, but did not receive prompt Security Council authorization.

Sierra Leone represents an interesting example which shows that the history and the errors from the past repeat themselves in the area of international relations. The failure to prevent the genocide in Rwanda and basically the nonsuccess of UN in enforcing and maintaining the peace were some lessons for the entire humanity and history that were never learnt.

Sierra Leone showed that the political and operational lessons from failed UN missions in Rwanda, Bosnia, and earlier in Somalia had not been learned. The same mistakes continued to be made. For example, the UN had learned in Bosnia and Rwanda that lightly armed peacekeepers should not be sent into a violent or potentially violent situation. Yet, the UN Security Council did exactly that in Sierra Leone in 1999, and set out to do the same in the Democratic Republic of Congo (the former Zaire) in 2000.

The question of economic sanctions seems to be quite relative if we take into account Oudraat`s view on this topic. He actually offers some very relevant arguments sustained by powerful examples. Basically the UN system cannot work in this frame of economic sanctions because the economic developments differ in every state. States with no money and a terrible economy will have therefore no money to pay these economic sanctions. Moreover, the authoritarian regimes will also feel no vulnerability in front of the economic sanctions.

The imposition of economic sanctions on some targets is ineffective and can even be counterproductive. For example, imposing economic sanctions on parties in poor states (Burundi) or failed states (Somalia) is at best futile. Similarly, the effectiveness of the use of force depends on the characteristics of the target. Aiming the use of force at the “conflict” instead of at the belligerent parties, as was done in the early 1990s in Bosnia and Somalia, led to dramatic policy failures. The political, economic, and military characteristics of the target should also guide selection of a strategy. For example, authoritarian regimes are less vulnerable to economic sanctions than are democratic regimes; when dealing with an authoritarian regime, it may be advisable to forgo economic sanctions and threaten the use of force immediately. Similarly, small guerrilla groups are generally immune to economic sanctions. Many sanctions regimes stay in place for a long time and often start producing adverse social and humanitarian effects. Such effects, though, rarely lead to the overthrow of politicians or a change in the behavior of the political elites.

After identifying these problematic issues within the field of international relations, the author says that it should be normal that the development of economic sanctions and military strategies should not be seen as independent undertakings. The basic idea he maintains as a short conclusion of the article is that economic sanctions strategies should include determinations about when to escalate and threaten the use of military force. The imposition of economic sanctions and the use of military force should therefore be seen as two points on a coercive continuum and two complementary policy options.

To sum up, the effective use of economic sanctions and military force depends on having a clear purpose; correctly assessing the target, leadership, coalition support; providing sufficient resources to ensure effective implementation; and having an appropriate strategy, including an exit and postintervention strategy. These conditions may seem commonsensical, but many post–cold war interventions have failed to meet these basic standards. And they consequently failed to have the desired effects.

Authorizing military action

There are situations in which peacekeeping fails, and the stronger action by Member States is strongly authorized under the Chapter VII of the Charter. The Security Council has authorized coalitions of Member States to use „all necessary means„, including military action, to deal with a conflict – as it did to restore the sovereignty of Kuwait after its invasion by Iraq (1991); to establish a secure environment for humanitarian relief operations in Somalia (1992); to contribute to the civilians at risk in Rwanda (1994); to restore the democratically elected government in Haiti (1994), to protect humanitarian operations in Albania (1997); and to restore peace and security in East Timor (1999).

Under Article 42 of the Charter, the Security Council has the authority to take military action to maintain or restore international peace and security. While such action should only be taken when all peaceful means have failed, the option of taking it is essential to the credibility of the United Nations as a guarantor of international security. This will require bringing into being, through negotiations, the special agreements foreseen in Article 43 of the Charter, whereby Member States undertake to make armed forces, assistance and facilities available to the Security Council for the purposes stated in Article 42, not only on an ad hoc basis but on a permanent basis. Under the political circumstances that now exist for the first time since the Charter was adopted, the longstanding obstacles to the conclusion of such special agreements should no longer prevail. The ready availability of armed forces on call could serve, in itself, as a means of deterring breaches of the peace since a potential aggressor would know that the Council had at its disposal a means of response. Forces under Article 43 may perhaps never be sufficiently large or well enough equipped to deal with a threat from a major army equipped with sophisticated weapons. They would be useful, however, in meeting any threat posed by a military force of a lesser order. I recommend that the Security Council initiate negotiations in accordance with Article 43, supported by the Military Staff Committee, which may be augmented if necessary by others in accordance with Article 47, paragraph 2, of the Charter. It is my view that the role of the Military Staff Committee should be seen in the context of Chapter VII, and not that of the planning or conduct of peace-keeping operations.

These actions, though sanctioned by the Security Council, were entirely under the control of the participating states. They were not United Nations peacekeeping operations – which are established by the Security Council and directed by the Secretary-General.

Peace-building

Peace-building is a very important process which involves actions to prevent the resurgence of conflict and support structures and practices that strengthen and solidify peace. There are two types of peace building. Preventive peace-building involves the broad range of long-term political, institutional and developmental activities seeking to address the root causes of conflict. Post-conflict peace-building encompasses all efforts to prevent the recurrence of conflict and to foster the consolidation of a peace process, thereby laying the foundation for sustainable peace.

United Nations peace-building consists of five main activities. The first, in the military and security area, includes disarmament, demobilization, the reintegration of combatants and destruction of arms. The second involved humanitarian activities, such as repatriation of refugees and care for children affected by the conflict. Political action is another area, which involves institution-building and fostering good governance, constitutional reforms and elections. Another area is human rights, encompassing human rights monitoring reform of the judiciary and the police, and investigation of abuses. Finally, economic and social measures include the reconstruction of infrastructure destroyed in a conflict, the alleviation of economic and social injustice and the creation of conditions for good governance and economic development.

Peacemaking and peace-keeping operations, to be truly successful, must come to include comprehensive efforts to identify and support structures which will tend to consolidate peace and advance a sense of confidence and well-being among people. Through agreements ending civil strife, these may include disarming the previously warring parties and the restoration of order, the custody and possible destruction of weapons, repatriating refugees, advisory and training support for security personnel, monitoring elections, advancing efforts to protect human rights, reforming or strengthening governmental institutions and promoting formal and informal processes of political participation.

Chapter 2

2.1 Peacekeeping in the Cold War Era (traditional)

Before moving on with my thesis, it is highly important that we encounter some crucial elements of international relations. Therefore, a few words about peacekeeping as UN discusses it is essential in order to better define the field of international relations:

A peacekeeping operation consists of military, police and civilian personnel, who work to deliver security, political and early peacebuilding support. Peacekeeping has proven to be one of the most effective tools available to the UN to assist host countries navigate the difficult path from conflict to peace. Peacekeeping has unique strengths, including legitimacy, burden sharing, and an ability to deploy and sustain troops and police from around the globe, integrating them with civilian peacekeepers to advance multidimensional mandates.

Moreover, the role of peacekeeping it is also very important: The boundaries between conflict prevention, peacemaking, peacekeeping, peacebuilding and peace enforcement have become increasingly blurred. Peace operations are rarely limited to one type of activity.

The world has been reorganized and reconfigured after the Cold War period. The entire first chapter is based on the traditional perspective of the peacekeeping as UN managed to enforce and to illustrate before the Cold War. But what happened after that? What were the major changes that shift perspectives over the entire world and the whole map? Well, territories were redefined and people reshaped their attitudes concerning life and nationhood.

Therefore, peacekeeping as it was classically conceived no longer exists since there is no real need for it.

During its early years, in the midst of the Cold War, the principle of UN peacekeeping, designed to rectify a stalemate at the UN, faced challenges of its own. It is by a UN Security Council resolution that a peacekeeping force can be sent into a conflict, and the format of the Security Council allows for any of the five permanent members: the United States (US), Soviet Union (Russia post-Cold War), China, Britain, and France, to veto decisions or operations of which they do not approve. Throughout the Cold War, the UN was unable to effectively engage in collective action because of the East-West division that existed within the Security Council as a result of the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union.

The main particularity of peacekeeping is to overcome the stalemate that was plaguing the Security Council at the hands of the two great power rivals who could simply veto any operation they deemed to be unfavorable to them. The aim of this peacekeeping initiative was to maintain fragile ceasefires and stabilize conflict areas so that tension could then be resolved diplomatically. By keeping small regional conflicts (proxy wars) contained, the US and the Soviet Union would not become involved in escalating conflicts; the end result was thought to be a nuclear third world war. As such, neither state supplied troops to UN peacekeeping forces in an effort to maintain their non-involvement. This inhibited UN forces since the US and the Soviet Union were the strongest states militarily after World War II, but this was deemed a necessary sacrifice for international security.

These early missions consisted of military observers and lightly armed troops whose primary tasks were to monitor the situation and report back to the political leaders, all with the aim of supporting any pre-existing ceasefires or peace agreements. It should be noted that forces only entered a conflict region once limited peace or a ceasefire had been reached, and they also required the support of all members of the conflict to ensure the force’s impartiality and to honor the principle of consent.

Most importantly, peacekeeping operations were effective in keeping the US and the Soviet Union out of smaller conflicts, thus also protecting international security.

2.2 Post-Cold War Peacekeeping (Complex and innovative)

With the end of the Cold War, there was no longer a need for UN peacekeeping operations to keep the great powers out of conflicts. Peacekeeping operations however remained in demand because they were now considered generally helpful aids to the resolution of conflicts. The number of UN peacekeeping missions soared dramatically as a result of the changing global political landscape at the end of the Cold War. Ethnic conflicts became more prevalent and internal wars within countries, rather than between them which was common during the Cold War, emerged as a result of failed states, which increased the demand for UN operations.

Due to the fact that each state was no more interested in preserving its own sphere as it was during the Cold War period, the two ex-superpowers were also no longer as committed to managing security within those same regions by themselves, opening the door to the possibility of collaboration within the Security Council. This involvement by the great powers also meant the overarching purpose of peacekeeping operations was no longer valid (to keep the US and Soviet Union out). It is for this reason that the utility of peacekeeping operations is often questioned because the very purpose and objective of peacekeeping no longer applies.

Even given this optimism for cooperation, operations after the Cold War have tended to be much more complex and multi-dimensional then before, now including humanitarian work, overseeing elections, and a number of reconstruction operations, all of which has made the pursuit of a straight-forward goal of the mission much more difficult.

Still, the actual means of peacekeeping are actually far more dangerous than those traditional because not all parties in the conflict have necessarily consented to UN presence, and force is sometimes utilized by those making up the operation. Both of these new characteristics of peacekeeping operations are new to the post-Cold War era, and are problematic if the theoretical concept behind UN peacekeeping operations (impartiality, consent, non-use of force) is to remain as it was throughout the Cold War era.

Moreover, the post-Cold War peacekeeping operations are also characterized by a multi-dimensional perspective, since they consist of political, economic, humanitarian, and social components in addition to the military component. They can include confidence-building measures, power-sharing agreements, and electoral support, and are no longer seen as a strictly military endeavor, but rather a coordinated, multi-dimensional, intervention. As a result of this, the distinction between keeping and enforcing peace can become blurred

We can also talk here about a profound lack of impartiality that has emerged in this period and which disables the utility of the United Nations as a main organ entitled to keep and enforce the peace.

Money is always a problem. Since the main contributors to UN peacekeeping operations are then developing countries with limited resources and less qualified personnel the second-rate nature of this organization calls in to question its utility, especially since the UN remains reliant on the participation of its member states for any mission to field enough personnel and materials.

This was evident in Rwanda in 1994, where too few troops and supplies were not able to accomplish their main goal to oversee a lasting peace agreement between the Rwandan government and the rebel force, the Rwandese Patriotic Front. Any use of the operation in Rwanda as a case study would no doubt determine that peacekeeping is set for failure. The failure of the force in Rwanda goes back to the bureaucracy of the UN and a lack of support from the main states contributing to the mission. Much of this lack of support came from the fact that Rwanda was not a country of high value to the world’s major powers, nor was a conflict here much of a threat to international security. Rwanda was proof once again that the success or failure of UN peacekeeping operations rests significantly with the cooperation and support of the world’s greatest powers; whoever those may be at the time, not merely a moral principle.

Most of the post-Cold War peacekeeping operations have been a direct extension of the view that domestic stability in general and democracy in particular are related to international order and define membership in the international community.

According to Roderick von Lipsey, traditional peacekeeping indicates the use of personal trained in the maintenance of law and order and in its most narrow interpretation, peacekeeping is the use of neutral forces between, and with the consent of, previously warring parties for the maintenance of an existing cease-fire or cessation of hostilities. Peacekeeping, […] is mitigative in nature, it provides a stable environment is which the resolution of conflict may be achieved. It may involve the interposition of neutral forces to maintain law and order. Preferably, contending forces have been disarmed or physically separated prior to the deployment of peacekeeping operation. Peace keeping activities are normally associated with those actions authorized under Chapter VI of the UN.

Now, regarding the attitude of Canada related to peacekeeping, there are a lot of elements which are worthy to being taken into consideration. Peacekeeping has a place of pride in the Canadian national identity. Canadians feel that their country is a traditional and natural leader in this international endeavor. Is this view justified? An answer to this question requires a probe of Canadian attitudes to see if they match Canada's historical and present contributions.

For many Canadians, peacekeeping conjures up images of heroic actions in tragic circumstances: a soldier rescuing a child during a firefight or extracting a hapless person from a minefield; a medic mending the wounds of an aging refugee; a pilot flying in desperately-needed supplies while under fire from the ground; or soldiers patroling in no-man's land to keep combatants apart. Peacekeeping is about protecting people in mortal danger, providing hope in almost hopeless situations and bringing peace and stability to faraway war-torn lands. It is about self-sacrifice and world-service.

The enthusiasm for peacekeeping is shared by many of the soldiers and civilians who have served in the operations. They formed the Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping with two dozen branches across Canada. Over 125,000 Canadian military personnel have served in UN peacekeeping operations (PKOs), more than 10 per cent of the UN total.

Many Canadian soldiers who survived (or thrived on) tough peacekeeping assignments have gone on to write their stories of adventure, achievement and tragedy. Canada's most famous soldier at present, Lt. Gen. Roméo Dallaire, received the sympathy of the entire nation as he described the horrifying predicament he faced as Force Commander of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda: he did not have the resources or political backing to intervene to stop the Rwandan genocide. He blamed himself, in part, for the slaughter of some 800,000 people in the summer of 1994. Among the Canadian population, he is a hero, with large crowds drawn to his public lectures.

2.3 Today's Peacekeeping Operations

What about today? What are the consequences that followed after the reconfiguration of the world`s map? Determining the effectiveness of UN peacekeeping in any era, but particularly in the post-Cold War context depends on the interpretation of “peacekeeping.” Is it to keep the conflict from escalating and protect lives in the process, or is it to end the conflict completely?

During the Cold War, peacekeeping existed to keep the major powers out of conflicts, and they did succeed in doing that. Now that the same threat to international security no longer exists, the concept of peacekeeping must adapt to suit international demands if it is to remain. As of late, it had taken on a more humanitarian objective, where protecting innocent lives has been the main goal, and in that, most peacekeeping operations have been successful.

The political area in which the UN is now enforcing peacekeeping operations has dramatically changed from the Cold War context, with internal ethnic conflicts as predominantly defining present-day missions, rather than ideological clashes like before. We may even say that peacekeeping, as we traditionally know it, is not quite effective when we talk about the contemporary political scene. The new type of conflicts which appeared is urgently asking to also redefine peacekeeping and its means of reinforcing it.

Returning to the idea that perhaps today peacekeeping can be merely a component of a larger conflict intervention, the UN has been forced to adapt the purposes of its peacekeeping operations to meet global needs post-Cold War. It is difficult to argue that UN peacekeeping is effective today, because that original concept really no longer exists, and yet peacekeeping operations continue to take place. The term is still used because it connotes a familiar sense of morality and impartiality, but forces labeled as such do much more today than work to keep the peace. Their involvement in “nation-building” initiatives has expanded their missions and history has not yet ruled on the true effectiveness of this change.

However, even if the actual means of peacekeeping are not as viable and strong as they were before, they are still needed today. Maybe we cannot call it the final solution, but it can definitely be an important step in order to achieve success on this plan. Therefore, the peacekeeping component cannot be separated from other sections of the operations, and its effectiveness goes hand-in-hand with the effectiveness of the larger mission.

This is evident from the fact that UN peacekeeping operations have continued over six decades which suggests that there is something worthwhile in such forces. As a result, they will no doubt continue to be an important facet of larger intervention operations sponsored by the UN. Peacekeepers working singlehandedly however, are no longer effective in a post-Cold War theatre at respecting the same policies of impartiality, consent, and the non-use of force which were the basis of the inception of peacekeeping. They can however, still positively influence the pursuit of peace in any conflict zone if they work to support the adversaries and do not themselves become a direct party to the conflict. In conclusion, peacekeeping operations resemble nothing of their classic selves, and yet they remain an integral part of any intervention in conflict regions; if merely for the reassurance to civilians that the sight of the blue beret provides.

The term peacekeeping does not appear in the UN Charter. Former Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold described peacekeeping as falling within "Chapter Six and a Half " of the charter. That is, it falls between traditional methods of resolving disputes peacefully (such as conciliation, mediation, and fact-finding) outlined in Chapter VI and resort to more forceful action (such as economic coercion and military intervention) authorized in Chapter VII. This is what we call a hybrid military operation. He can actually state that hybridity represents a major characteristic of today`s peacekeeping operations because in the filed of international relations there is a huge discrepancy between theory and practice. This being said, the need for a new theory to deal with the actual living situations is constant. This is why hybridity and mixing methods of enforcing peace are quite present in the theory and practice of the international relations.

2.4 Why Peacekeeping fails?

Even if peacekeeping managed to be a highly important weapon against war and conflict in the previous decades, being one of UN`S main instrument in preserving and enforcing the peace, we can also talk about some essential factors which are very influential in order to achieve success. The website of UN describes the main factors which are crucial for the success of a peacekeeping operation:

It must: Be guided by the principles of consent, impartiality and the non-use of force except in self-defense and defense of the mandate;

Be perceived as legitimate and credible, particularly in the eyes of the local population;

Promote national and local ownership of the peace process in the host country.

So, this being told, it is absolutely obvious that these factors are the generators of a possible success of the maintaining and enforcing the peace. So, when we deal with situations in which elements of such kinds I already mentioned are missing, peacekeeping fails to achieve its purpose. It all depends on the situation we are discussing. Sometimes, not even the most competent peacekeepers are able to find a viable solution. Moreover, we are also talking about a highly political involvement in all these sorts of peacekeeping operations. So, if the problems get to have a political nature, and peacekeeping is not a powerful objective to follow and to accomplish, then everything is pretty clear.

Well, what I am trying to point out and reveal is that peacekeeping is just a form based on a theory which truly needs a viable content in order for it to work. This is why there are a great number of situations in which peacekeeping failed and didn`t represent an option.

In addition to all these elements I discussed, the theory of International Relations also provides a fundamental condition in order for peacekeeping to work. This is the absolute autonomy of the peacekeeper. We are talking here about impartiality. So, in how many situations we can actually talk about impartiality of a peacekeeper? Even without taking into consideration the political nature of these operations, we can always say that the peacekeeper will always be a partisan of the victim, especially if we take into consideration a genocide. So, peacekeeping is sometimes very unstable. As I already said, it is just a form which certainly needs a basis, a content to be built on, in order to work.

Other important terms which generate the success of the peacekeeping operations are:

Genuine commitment to a political process by the parties in working towards peace (there must be a peace to keep);

Clear, credible and achievable mandates, with matching personnel, logistic and financial resources;

Unity of purpose within the Security Council, with active support to UN operations in the field;

Host country commitment to unhindered UN operations and freedom of movement;

Supportive engagement by neighbouring countries and regional actors;

An integrated UN approach, effective coordination with other actors on the ground and good communication with host country authorities and population;

The utmost sensitivity towards the local population and upholding the highest standards of professionalism and good conduct (peacekeepers must avoid becoming part of the problem).

Chapter 3

3.1 United Nations mission in Rwanda (UNAMIR) – a historical overview

To begin with, there is lot of controversial regarding the missions and operation of UN in the conflict from Rwanda which ultimately turned into genocide.

United Nations involvement in Rwanda began in 1993, when Rwanda and Uganda asked for the deployment of military observers along their common border to prevent somehow the military use of the area by the Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF). In response, the Security Council established the United Nations Observer Mission Uganda-Rwanda.

Fighting had broken out in Rwanda in 1990 between the mainly Hutu government and the Tutsi-led RPF, operating from Uganda. A peace agreement has reached in 1993, providing for a transitional government and elections. At the request of Rwanda and the RPF, the Security Council in 1993 set up the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR), to help the parties implement the agreement. But the transitional government has never established.

Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi were killed in April 1994 while they were returning from peace talks in Tanzania. Their plane crushed after it was shot, as it was landing in Kigali which is the capital of Rwanda. As expected, this had a number of terrible outcomes which generated the events discussed in the paper:

This set off a wave of massacres, in which the Prime Minister, other Ministers and UNAMIR peacekeepers were among the first victims. The killings, targeting Tutsis and moderate Hutus, were mainly carried out by the Hutu-dominated army and militias.

UNAMIR came as the solution proposed by UN in order to resolve the Rwandan conflict. It was established by Security Council resolution 872 (1993) of 5 October 1993 to help implement the Arusha Peace Agreement signed by the Rwandese parties on 4 August 1993.

UNAMIR's mandate was: to assist in ensuring the security of the capital city of Kigali; monitor the ceasefire agreement, including establishment of an expanded demilitarized zone and demobilization procedures; monitor the security situation during the final period of the transitional Government's mandate leading up to elections; assist with mine-clearance; and assist in the coordination of humanitarian assistance activities in conjunction with relief operations.

Although it had no success, UNAMIR tried to arrange a ceasefire, and its personnel came under attack. After some countries unilaterally withdrew their contingents, the Security Council in April reduced UNAMIR`s strength from 2,548 to 270. However, UNAMIR managed to shelter a great number of Rwandese.

An arms embargo against Rwanda was imposed by the Security Council in Mat and increased UNAMIR`s strength to up to 5,500 troops. However, it took nearly six months for Member States to provide them.

In July, RPF forces took control of Rwanda, ending the civil war and establishing a broad-based government. Out of a population of 7.9 milion, some 800,000 people had been killed, some 2 milion had fled to other countries and as many as 2 milion were internally displaced. A United Nations humanitarian appeal raised $762 milion, making it possible to respond to the enormous humanitarian challenge.

So, the inevitable had produced and genocide happened in Rwanda. A commission of Experts established by the Security Council reported in September that „overwhelming evidence„ proved that Hutu elements had perpetrated acts of genocide against the Tutsi group. In November, the Security Council established the International Tribunal for Rwanda to prosecute those responsible for genocide and war crimes.

Of course than one of the main problem that appeared were the refugees who returned to the country en masse, large numbers of Rwandan Hutus took refuge in Eastern Zaire, including elements involved in the genocide. From there, those elements launched attacks into western Rwanda.

Following the ceasefire and the installation of the new Government, the tasks of UNAMIR were further adjusted by the Security Council to ensure stability and security in the north-western and south-western regions of Rwanda; to stabilize and monitor the situation in all regions of Rwanda to encourage the return of the displaced population; to provide security and support for humanitarian assistance operations inside Rwanda; and to promote, through mediation and good offices, national reconciliation in Rwanda.

UNAMIR finished its mission in 1996, leaving behind a real disaster and a profound and great frustration of the impossibility of avoiding all these human irreparable damages. Of course, opinions are divided. Whether we find UNAMIR responsible, whether we find other guilt figure, the negative changes which took place in Rwanda have no turn back.

At the request of Rwanda, the Security Council terminated UNAMIR`s mandate in 1996. United Nation agencies have continued to provide humanitarian aid and to assist in the return of the independent inquiry, headed by former Swedish Prime Minister Ingvar Carlsson, which he had commissioned to look into the United Nations actions during the genocide.

The panel concluded that the failure to sop the genocide was shared by the United Nations Secretariat, the Security Council and the Member States. The Secretary-General expressed „deep remorse„ over the United Nations failure to stop the genocide, and reiterated his commitment to make sure the Organization never again falters in stopping mass slaughter.

3.2. UNAMIR in the light of feminism and realism from the International Relations perspective

3.2.1. UNAMIR in the light of realism

If we speak in terms of international relations, realism represents an interesting aspect of theory which could be discussed here, in the case of Rwanda. How can we define” realism? Well, quoting Jack Donnelly in his work entitled Realism and International Relations ”realism emphasizes the constraints on politics imposed by human nature and the absence of international government. Together, they make international relations largely a realm of power and interests. ”

As many theories of the International Relations, or better said, as all most theories in the whole world, realism it is also defined by several important strengths and weaknesses. Being a very famous theory in this field, it was highly analyzed and sustained by a great number of authors.

Realism is the international relations (IR) theory that is probably the most widely recognized by the general public. It is associated with such familiar terms and concepts as geopolitics, balance of power, realpolitik, and raison d'etat. Realism is known for its emphasis on, and is often conflated with, rationality. It presents an unsentimental and pessimistic view of international relations as being in a perpetual state of conflict and war where power, security, and material wealth and capabilities motivate states far more than ideas or values.

What about cooperation from this point of view of realism? We saw in the previous sub-chapter that UNAMIR failed to accomplish its mission in keeping and reinforcing the peace in Rwanda. Well, realism was the approach of the international relations which highly generated all the failure we are discussing here. This is why I may say that we deal here with a lack of cooperation characteristic to this manner of approaching things.

Realist, on the other hand, refers to those traditionally hostile to any intervention said to be motivated by ethical reasons. Their major criticism is that interventions, humanitarian or not, are always guided by ‘real’ (such as political) interests and thus can never be purely moral in nature. As Smith (1998) puts it, they are ‘unable to act in other than self-interested ways’ (p70). This is an argument heard over and over again that can not be taken lightly. However, it might be possible to structure a realist, or ‘quasi-realist’, argument for intervention by allowing space for some moral principles to emerge. In order to do so, we would have to expand our concept of national interest as a broad one.

3.2.2. UNAMIR in the light of feminism

As also defined by the Macmillan English Dictionary, feminism would be the belief that women should have the same beliefs as men. Therefore, we may even say that feminism is a great partisan of equality and that it meant modernization of the individual and its thinking. It helped him move on, preparing minds and souls for a cultural and juridical progress.

Women had a very important role in reputing Rwanda on its feet after the tremendous effects of the genocide on all levels. The rebuilding of the country from a psychological perspective was one of the fundamental achievement of the women`s organizations in post-genocide Rwanda. In fact, this kind of organizations reconstructed the world of Rwanda.

The war and genocide in Rwanda during the first half of the 1990s shattered the dense social ties upon which women, both rural and urban, had relied in the past. In particular, these conflicts had a devastating effect on women`s organizations, destroying their physical infrastructure and decimating their human resources. Many members and leaders were killed, while others fled into exile. Those who survived were left destitute, fearful, and alone. Yet in the aftermath of these conflicts, women`s organizations, both new and old, took a leading role in efforts to rebuild the country. Offering a range of services, these groups helped women reconstruct their lives through emergency material assistance, counseling, vocational training, and assistance with income-earning activities. In addition, many organizations provided a space where women could reestablish social ties, seek solace, and find support.

Moreover, the highly rapid spread of these organizations was absolutely remarkable. Of course, we can ask ourselves questions such as: How was this possible, in the shattered and absolutely shocked social terrain of post-genocide Rwanda? How can we explain the large number of groups or what is the nature of these groups, and how have the activities of women`s organizations changed as a result of the conflicts?

Well, the reemergence of Women`s Organizations changed Rwanda and the view upon the genocide. Optimism re-found its way due to these kinds of organizations. After the war and genocide of 1994, most women in Rwanda found themselves in desperate circumstances and life situations. Genocide is definitely that sort of incident which lets people marked forever. Not only economically speaking or with some human losses. Psychologically peaking, those people need something to believe in it again. Social isolation was another problem which affected the development of the country after genocide. This is why the feminist organizations were of tremendous help for the recovering of Rwandan people. Their communities had been vanished and dispersed, and the men on whom they had depended were dead or had fled. It was a matter of identity despite all the visible and intuitive negative issues which were brought by the genocide. People lost their contact with the world they were surrounded by, with their territory. They couldn`t find themselves anymore in the nationhood, there was no nationhood to relate to. And then, of course, there was the matter of poverty and other economic problems which genocide brought to Rwanda.

Women still had to confront daily problems of survival – how to find housing when so many homes had been destroyed; how to feed and clothe themselves and their surviving children, as well as other relatives or orphans they had taken in; and how to deal with the debilitating traumas, both physical and psychological, of the horrors they had seen and experienced.

Several organizations that emerge in Rwanda after the genocide seek to promote women`s rights. The oldest and most visible of these is Haguruka, which means „stand up„ in Kinyarwanda. Haguruka tries to educate women and children about their tights and help them plead for redress in the legal system. Jurists the organization employs provide legal aid at Haguruka`s center in Kigali, helping women claim their rights in court. To extend the reach of its activities, Haguruka obtained funding from the Rwanda Women`s Initiative of UNCHCR to train thirty-six paralegal trainers. Working within the framework of Haguruka`s Mobile Legal Clinic, the paralegals are providing legal aid in prefectures outside Kigali and training others to do this type of work.

Collaboration seems to be the sole solution to deal with all these kind of problems. The State couldn`t be able to sustain damaged people, neither economically, nor psychologically. This is how all these organizations happened.

It was in this context of severe crisis, where the state lacked the means to meet critical needs that women began to seek ways of cooperating to confront common problems. Groups of women formed in rural areas, building on previous rural organizations that had provided economic and social support to their members. In Rwanda after the genocide, many of these organizations grouped together women of one ethnic group – either Hutu or Tutsi. But in some areas, multiethnic associations involving Hutu and Tutsi reemerged. Recognizing their need to live together again and to find ways of supporting themselves through collaborative activities, Hutu and Tutsi women sought to overcome the mistrust spawned by the war and genocide.

In Kigali, the capital, women who had participated in national women`s organizations before 1994 started to meet. They talked and offered each other mutual support. They had to voice somehow everything they faced during the conflict, all their concerns and desperate conditions they had to suffer. They then began to seek ways to meet these needs. Joined by Rwandan women who had returned to the country from exile, they began to rebuild organizations grouped within Pro-Femmes/These Hamwe, a preexisting umbrella organization of women`s organizations. At the end of 1994, they drafted the Campaign for Peace as a means of addressing Rwanda`s post-genocide social and economic problems. This program, focusing particularly on the critical needs of women and children in Rwanda, proposed ways of involving women in efforts to promote overall reconstruction and reduce social tensions.

A second factor contributed to the growth of women`s organizations at this time: Rwanda`s tradition of vibrant organizational activity. In the early postcolonial period, official policies of Rwanda`s First Republic had supported social centers (foyers sociaux) for women in each prefecture. These foyers sociaux, focused mainly on the needs of rural women, also provided opportunities for leadership to the educated young women who staffed them.

There is not a surprise that after the failure to prevent the genocide in Rwanda, the international community and UN were a powerful instrument of sustaining this sort of manifestations and feminist organizations in order for Rwanda to „get up„ and relive. Otherwise, the organizations could not have been possible only with the emergence of women in Rwanda, mainly because of the financial problems. So, yes, if UN was somehow the scapegoat of all genocidal conflict in this country, it was somehow normal that they support economically the revival of the country and the voicing of all the suffering of Rwandan people.

A third factor in the reemergence of women`s organizations in Rwanda after 1994 was support from the international community. Rwanda received large quantities of emergency aid after the genocide, and this aid had a major impact, even if it was insufficient to meet all needs. Some bilateral and multilateral donors, influenced by the lobby-ing of Rwandan women`s groups and leaders, by the postgenocide government, and by expatriates convinced of the importance of gender, paid special attention to the needs and roles of women. Donor resources established a supportive context for the renewed growth of women`s organizations at the grass-roots level, and donor support was also essential to rebuilding initiatives of Rwandan women`s organizations at the national level. Overall, the effects of these activities were positive and important to Rwanda`s reconstruction. Aided by donors, some national organizations were able to undertake especially ambitious capacity to implement these effectively.

Finally, the policies of Rwanda`s postgenocide government constitute a fourth factor encouraging the reemergence of women`s organizations after the genocide. The Ministry of Gender and Promotion of Women`s Development (Migerprofe, formerly Migefaso) supported women`s groups by establishing a ministry representative in each prefecture and commune, these officials (who were usually, but not always, women) worked alongside and places pressure on local government authorities to bring attention to women`s concerns. The results were impressive. A 1997 study estimated that in each of Rwanda`s 154 communes there were an average of about 100 women`s associations – or a total of more than 15,400 groups. (100)

This is why the urgency of women`s needs, the tradition of past organizational activity in the country, and government and donor support were all important for the reemergence of women`s organizations in Rwanda after 1994. Women solidarity was the one who rebuilt the country. After the genocide, women`s solidarity as important both among those who stayed in the country and among those who fled to the cams. Within Rwanda, these groups served as essential support and therapeutic networks for women who had experienced trauma.

However, there were some reproaching elements which this sort of feminist organizations had to deal with: the tendency for urban-based groups. Of course, this is explicable, but it is also something which denoted a partiality and the fact that all had a politically nature.

The literature of women`s organizations in Africa notes a tendency for urban-based groups to mirror existing social cleavages between educated elite women and poor rural women. Indeed, for a number of cases elsewhere in Africa, studies have shown that national women`s organizations often do more to promote the social status and well-being of the urban women who staff them, than to address the most pressing concerns of the rural majority. One might well ask, then, to what extent national women`s groups in Rwanda serve simply as an arena for educated elite women to promote their own interests. It is true that many Rwandan women`s organizations, now as in the past, provide jobs and a platform for elite women.

Instead of conclusions

In order to draw a conclusion, I would assert that UNAMIR and the entire contribution of the international community in the organization of these initiatives led to the rebuilding of the country, especially from a psychological perspective. It was feminism who reborn in Rwanda thanks to all these procedures and initiatives which took place here. It was an instrument in adopting a new identity for the lost suffering people.

Clearly, these organizations serve as a training ground on which women can acquire leadership skills and build networks that position them for participation in other activities in the public sphere. Yet, the stated goals of most groups are to assist vulnerable women and promote their empowerment. To what extent have these goals been achieved? (…) It is worth noting, though, that however much the actual achievement of their goals might fall short, most of these women`s organizations are clearly meeting real, urgent needs. This is recognized by a broad spectrum of Rwandan officials and expatriates involved in reconstruction in Rwanda. (103)

The organizations grouped in Pro-Femmes are among the most visible advocating women`s concerns. Other national organizations, not members of Pro-Femmes, are led by women and are working on women`s issues. These groups may be fairly new (and thus have not yet joined Pro-Femmes), or they may have independent sources of external funding so that they do not need the support of Pro-Femmes. One such Group is the Forum for African Women Educationalists/Rwanda (Fawe/Rwanda), which sponsors programs that encourage girls to continue their education. In addition to the many women`s organizations in Rwanda, there are mixed organizations with women leaders and a gender component. The activities of such groups complement the work of women`s organizations.

We have seen that a varied, growing array of Rwandan organizations have participated actively in the reconstruction of the country after the genocide. Women are well represented and visible – not only in organizations that exclusively or mainly target women but also in many organizations that include both sexes. At the national and local levels, such associations can claim impressive achievements. Their activities respond to a broad spectrum of important needs: support and solace for widows and orphans; aid for women`s income-earning initiatives; vocational training and adult education; assistance with small livestock, improved seeds, and agricultural programs to increase yields; and promotion of girls` education. These efforts cannot be expected to overcome poverty. Structural change is needed to achieve that. Nevertheless, strong independent and outspoken women` groups can draw attention to specific problems that affect women and children while providing resources that help individual women and groups confront these problems.

The outcome of all the actions of these organizations was absolutely visible and it had a major and powerful influence in the Third World countries. It seems that the international goals were much broader than to simply sustain psychologically and economically Rwandan people:

Alleviating suffering and assisting women in a post-conflict context to get back on their feet economically can be seen as a path to broader goals – a means to support women`s political participations and to promote reconciliation. Here also, women `s organizations in Rwanda have done a great deal. By the end of 1990s, more women were participating in the public arena at the local level than ever before, thanks in part to organizations that fostered such participation. At the same time, some women`s organizations were helping women whose trust had been shattered to live and work together with other again – part of an incremental process of reconciliation. Nevertheless, significant challenges remain in efforts both to empower women and to improve their economic situation.

3.3. Research elements: inquiries, facts and figures, case study

The Genocide Discourse: Identifying Facts and Truths

The numbers that emerged from the genocide were huge. The financial losses were enormous and the human damages were also in a great number. And, at the end of the day, numbers are the ones which can speak about the great terror happened in Rwanda.

Many factors ranging from ethnicity to political economy have been offered to explain the Rwandan genocide that killed approximately 800, 00 in the spring on 1994. While labeling the genocide as an „ethnic conflict„ is a gross simplification of the factors that mobilized and targeted Rwandans for acts of violence, it is fair to discern that the majority of those killed were Tutsis and some were moderate Hutus. Historically and systematically reinforced by the Belgian colonial administration, Tutsis were hierarchically ordered in society as the superior race. The demographic and socio-economic toll of the genocide was devastating. Rwanda saw five percent of its population of 8 million bludgeoned, tortured, and hacked to death. Of the 800, 000 persons massacred, up to 500, 000 of the victims were Tutsis; this resulted in the decimation of more than three-quarters of the Tutsi population. Among those killed, between seventy-five and eighty percent were males. Additionally, an estimated 500, 000 Rwandan women, both Tutsi and Hutu, were raped or experienced some form of sexual violence. Furthermore, many Rwandan children were rounded up and killed in their schools or homes. Most of those who survived witnessed the killing of their parents and family leaving many orphans and child-headed households. Children were also used as killers. The Interhamwe militia comprised many Rwandan youth who were supporters of the Habyarimana regime. For all Rwandans who survived the genocide, their physical and emotional scarring is an extremely volatile component in society that hinders the reconciliation process.

Peacekeeping operations reflect the UN's growing prominence in global affairs, the reconsideration of the definition of security, and the debate over the UN's constituency and working definition of the international community. To begin with, the UN's post-Cold War popularity translated into an explosion of peacekeeping operations. There were just 11 operations between 1956 and 1988, and no new operation was authorized between 1978 and 1988. Between 1988 and 1995, by contrast, the Security Council authorized 24 new operations. The UN was anxious to prove its promise, and the permanent members of the Security Council, who now found the UN to be a useful place to dump intractable conflicts, encouraged that sentiment. These and other factors contributed to an explosion of peacekeeping operations.

The fact that UN was accused of indifference regarding Rwanda represents a subjective matter. Various opinions find their arguments in plenty of numbers and figures, even ways of approaching the topic. However, the numbers of the losses suffered due to the genocide are a clear and insurmountable fact. The genocide existed and it made havoc among the Rwandan people. Its negative effects were huge, and maybe, never cleared and hurled as a whole.

So, what I am trying to demonstrate is that what really matters is the human suffering, and not the guilt part involved. Still, in order to analyze all the facts and elements which contributed to the genocide, as well as those which were able to influence things in the post-genocide period we need to side with an approach. So, despite UN`s good intentions and the fact that it was created as an impartial international organizations, it also has its own interests regarding the field of international relations. This is why it is mainly hard for the balance to go in our part or another, because favored and disfavored arguments are positioned everywhere in the post-genocide Rwandan literature.

Still, an only reliable fundamental cause of the Rwandan genocide as well as one possible explanation for the failure of UN it is not possible. The situation is of a great complexity to reduce it to just one perspective.

It should by now be clear that there can be no single, simple explanation of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. A number of possible causes, which need to be included in any satisfactory account of the genocide, have none the less been identified. These include: the colonial ideology of racial division ; the economic and political crises of the 1980s and early 1990s ; the previously very highly organized nature of Rwandan society ; and the fragile regional and class base of a political faction determined to hold on to state power at any cost. Other important contributing factors were the use of sophisticated propaganda techniques, and the escalatory cycle of violence within Rwanda and Burundi. It has been argued that ethnic accounts or a ` racial ' explanation of the genocide are untenable. Of course, the politics of

ethnic identification was central to implementing genocide plans. Ethnic conflict is usually presumed to be possible only when there is some popular support for separate identities among the majority of the populations concerned. This was not obvious in Rwanda, where ethnic conflict had to be engineered. Logically, carefully planned and well organized plans to exterminate a group of people identified solely on the basis of their supposed ethnic, or racial, identity cannot be the same as `ethnic conflict'; the cause is political and not social. In many ways, we are not much closer to identifying the origins of the political project of genocide than at the start of the article ; it is clear that much more in-depth research would be needed in Rwanda (and in Belgium and France) than has been possible here. Clearly a government which was supposed to `protect the people' ended up doing the opposite (Republic of Rwanda 1995: 13). The present government of Burundi can appear to some to be in danger of a similar bias, although with less dramatic consequences than in Rwanda in 1994.

Chapter 4

Summary of research results

Observing and analyzing the phenomenon and also the pure facts from the Rwandan genocide is not an easy task. Its complexity is overwhelming and the different elements which were part to this national disaster are like a mosaic incredibly difficult to follow and to give it a pattern.

However, we deal with a genocidal national situation which affected a huge number of people. Genocide is the highest profound crime whose intention is to destroy and completely exterminate the chose group. The gravity of the situation goes at an international level.

Of course that the theory of international relations tried to explain and scientifically define and analyze the genocide in Rwanda by several instruments of theory such as realism explained and viewed through the lenses of this country. And yes, after seeing what were the main factors which encode the realist perspective, an explanation of the Rwandan genocide though these lenses could be understandable.

The, feminism emerged as another fundamental aspect of the Rwandan genocidal terror. Even if this is a fact which could be estimated to be the outcome of the big disaster, it was somehow part off it, emerged from it, being very interesting to follow, as I already pointed out in my third chapter.

Conclusion of thesis

Now, of course, as I already mentioned, it is very difficult to take a certain side in this situation. The literature on this topic is huge, the great number of writings is overwhelming so that picking just a manner to glance upon the Rwandan genocide it just doesn’t seem enough.

In my personal view, it still is a long way to go and to research before finding an answer. Even if we choose to blame UNAMIR for the failure or to explain through some realist lenses, using the theory of international relations, what happened cannot change:

I am increasingly drawn to the conclusion that the bureaucratization of peacekeeping contributed to this indifference to the suffering of the very people peacekeeping is mandated to assist. As I, for one, more closely identified with the United States and the UN, I found it easier to remain indifferent to the occasional evil in deference to their "interests." There is, in my experience, an intimate connection between the discourse of acting in the best interests of the international community, the bureaucratization of peacekeeping, and the production of indifference.

However, talking here about the outcomes of genocide, the situation is pretty clear, as comparing to its causes and explanations. So, the gender becomes an important element here. Although we also find its realistic evidence, feminism in Rwanda emerged from here and the actions of feminist organizations were absolutely obvious. These kind of actions is what kept Rwanda alive:

The Rwandan genocide offers important evidence that “gendering” genocide can provide powerful insights into the outbreak, evolution, and denning character of genocidal killing. For this approach to bear full fruit, however, the “gendering” must be both careful and inclusive. In particular, any investigation that implicitly equates “gender” with “women” is likely to leave a vast analytical terrain untouched or poorly explored. This is not to say that specific inquiries into women’s plight and experience are to be abandoned. They may provide a wealth of useful information and policy recommendations, especially given that women/females are likely to constitute the majority or large majority of a genocide’s survivors.

As a conclusion, I would only quote one of my favorite writers on this topic which is Helen M. Hintjen: In the same way, we need to continue to examine the implications of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda in order to draw out its lessons for humanity. Therefore, our main attention should be concentrated upon the severe implication that the Rwandan genocide had.

Bibliography

United Nations, Basic Facts about the United Nations, New York, 200, News and Media Division United Nations Department of public Information;

Dallaire, Romeo, Shake handswith the devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda

Barnett, Michael N, Eyewitness to a genocide:The United Nations and Rwanda

The Shallow Graves of Rwanda

Guns over Kigali: The Rwandese Civil War – 1994 (A Personal Account)

Jett, Dennis C., Why peacekeeping fails?

Kuperman, Alan J., The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention: Genocide in Rwanda

Destexhe, Alain, Rwanda and Genocide in the Twentieth Century

Lewis, Sarah, The Utility of Peacekeeping in the Post-Cold War Era

Helen M. Hintjens, Explaining the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, 1999, printed in the United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press

Michael N. Barnett, The UN Security Council, Indifference, and Genocide in Rwanda

Jones, Adam, Gender and genocide in Rwanda, Carfax Publishing Tylor and Francis Group, 2002

Thomson Allan, The Media and the Rwanda Genocide, Pluto press, London, Fountain publishers, 2007

Gribbin, Robert, In the Aftermath of genocide. The US role in Rwanda,

Krishna Kumar (ed.), Women and civil war. Impact, organizations, and action, Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data, 2001

de Jonge Oudraat, Chantal, Current History, vol. 99, no. 641, December 2000, pp. 419-429. (the online version encountered on the website academia.edu

Roderick von Lipsey, Breaking the Cycle, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1997, pp. 9, 15.

Boutros-Gali, B. (1995). An Agenda for Peace, 2nd edition. New York: United Nations.

Ratner, S. R. (1996). The New UN Peacekeeping: Building

Peace in Lands of Conflict after the Cold War. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Websites:

www.un.org

www.macmillandictionary.com

www.us-iran-relations.com

www.academia.edu