АМЕРИКАНСКИЙ И РОССИЙСКИЙ ПОДХОДЫ К ПРОБЛЕМЕ МИРОТВОРЧЕСТВА: ЛИБЕРАЛЬНАЯ ИДЕОЛОГИЯ ПРОТИВ ЭТАТИЗМА
Regional conflicts and civil wars born out of religious and ethnic contradictions are characteristic for the second crisis of world order of 2010s. International system was divided ideologically and this is ineffective in conflict resolution, and great powers oppose each other diametrically regarding the reasons of conflict as well as methods and goals of their resolution. For Russia and some non-Western nations the goal of conflict resolution would be the preservation and reinforcement of the local state so that it is able to maintain law and order on its territory and stabilize the situation in the region. For U.S. and Western countries the goal in conflict resolution will be the protection of individual rights and freedoms together with the establishment of liberal democratic regime on the place of the former authoritarian one, leading very often to the vacuum of power and chaos. The policy of the west is based on liberal ideology mixed with interventionist ideas. Russia views the situation through the prism of statehood and nationalism
Historically, the central principles of international peacekeeping have been formulated by western powers due to their political and ideological domination in international institutions, including the United Nations (UN) family. It is only recently that emerging powers, among them Russia and China, have started to formulate their own policies of peacekeeping and to implement them in practice. While the general objectives of peacekeeping as understood by western nations and emerging powers are similar, there are differences of emphasis. Recent developments in Syria and the active involvement of Russia in these events have underscored the nuanced views these two approaches hold on peacekeeping in general and on outside involvement in peacekeeping operations.
For the United States and many European countries, the goal of peacekeeping and conflict resolution is to protect individual rights and freedoms and to accomplish a “democratic transition” by replacing authoritarian regimes with liberal-democratic alternatives. For Russia as well as many other emerging powers, the goal of conflict resolution and peacekeeping is to preserve and strengthen the local state structures so that they can support law and order on their territory and stabilize the situation in the country and the region. The western approach assumes that donor countries know better what to do with regard to local problems, while a “rising powers” approach is far less dogmatic and recognizes the right of actors to make mistakes along the way.
This article focuses on Russia’s approaches to peacekeeping as they are defined theoretically and practicall
Russia’s Participation in Peacekeeping.
The Politics, Challenges, and Future of United Nations Peacekeeping Contributions.
The number of conflicts in the world is increasing, as well as their intensity and fierceness. We see the trend of unfolding spiral of violence in the world and thus there is a pressing need to assess the underlying reasons of it. Challenges to a secure development of the world stem from political, economic and social issues that have long been ignored or have not been effectively dealt with by both policymakers and researchers. Likewise, both academic and policy responses to the unfolding global grievances and local ferocities are still one-sided in many cases, which causes ever more fighting and insurgence. This project aims to fill in existing lacunas in the area of understanding issues underlying the current global conflict trend, many of which have long been in the shadow of research and policy-analysis internationally. This book project sheds light on complicated and long-term issues, such as revival of authoritarianism, crucial transformation of peacekeeping concept, rising security and strategic issues of small states, as well as security challenges presented by\to new international grouping such as BRICS. An intentionally diverse scope of this project allows to bring along such issues as Islamophobia and the prospects for Christian-Muslim dialogue, the scope, essence and consequences of international sanctions to manage international disputes, as well as the issue of a failed state. The geographical scope of this project ranges from North Korea to Somalia, and from Russia to Brazil. This project aims to educate all interested in the underlying fundamental long-term reasons of current political conflicts worldwide and to provoke debate on many issues that are still considered “second priority level”, though they provide even stronger basis for the current conflict-prone situation in the world. This book project aims to satisfy the need of in-depth analysis and expertise on issues of international sanctions, revival of authoritarianism, failure of state, formation of new international organizations, changing essence of peacekeeping in conflict-prone areas and globally, new contexts for Muslim-Christian dialogue and it successes and failures, as well as lesser-known contexts of strategic choices of small states.
The authors: Francesco Giumelli, Mitchell Belfer, Hanna Shelest, Piskunova Natalia, Gracian Cimek, Yefimova Anna, Bekkin Renat, Solkin Victor, Sarah Rial, Esther Sule.
This chapter discusses the approach of the Russian Federation to United Nations (UN) peacekeeping based on various regional organizations as they functioned at the beginning of the 1990s. Russia, being essentially a status-quo power, supported the traditional UN approach to peacekeeping as well as the procedures on peacekeeping established by the UN Security Council and the Secretariat.
The present article studies the issue of the interrelation between the senior UN official – the Secretary-General and the main UN body – the Security Council. The nature of the Secretary-General role is ambiguous since the very creation of the UN. On one hand, the Secretary-General leads the Secretariat – the body that carries out technical and subsidiary functions in relation to other UN Main Bodies. This is the way the Secretary-General position was initially viewed by the UN authors. On the other hand, the UN Charter contains certain provisions that, with a certain representation, give the Secretary-General vigorous powers, including political ones. Since the very beginning of the UN operation the Secretary-Generals have tried to define the nature of these auxiliary powers, formalize the practice of their use. Special place among these powers have the provisions given in the Charter article 99. This article give to the Secretary-General the right to directly appeal to the Security Council and draw its attention to the situation that, in his (Secretary-General’s) opinion may threaten the international peace and security. This right was used by some Secretary-Generals during different crises occurred after the creation of the UN. This article covers consecutively the crisis in Congo, Iran hostage crisis and the situation in Lebanon. These are three situations that forced Secretary-Generals Hammarskjold, Waldheim and de Cuellar to explicitly use their right to appeal to the Security Council. Other cases in UN history involving the Secretary-General appealing to the Security Council while mentioning article 99 cannot be considered as the use of the nature of this article in full sense of its spirit. Such cases were preceded by other appeals to the Council on the same situations by other subjects (notably, the UN member states) or other actions that made Secretary-General to merely perform its technical function. The main research problem here is the search for the UN instrument that could grant the Secretary-General with political powers I addition to existing administrative ones. The outcomes of the analysis show that the main instrument of such kind is the UN Charter Article 99. However, the degree of its usage activity is decreasing over time.