Peacekeeping & Counterinsurgency Can Learn From Each Other

Newswise — On the surface, peacekeeping and counterinsurgency have little in common: neutral, nonviolent end of war versus an inherently non-neutral, violent operation to win a war.

Yet the two are not so dissimilar, says Dr. Andrea Lopez, associate professor of political science at Susquehanna University in Selinsgrove, Pa. She is presenting a paper, “Lessons from the Other Side: What Peacekeeping and Counterinsurgency Can Teach One Another,” at the International Studies Association Annual Convention in New Orleans last week.

“Despite their very significant differences, there are areas of overlap,” she says. “Such areas can provide suggestions for the improvement of both forms of military operation.” And because both peacekeeping and counterinsurgency are notoriously difficult, it’s increasingly important these operations look to one another for lessons.

“Counterinsurgent forces can be more successful if they act more like peacekeepers and peacekeepers can become more successful if they adopt characteristics of counterinsurgents,” suggests Lopez. “Counterinsurgents should increase their adherence to an unbiased ‘good’ or ‘peace’ in the search for legitimacy, and have greater willingness to negotiate with those factions willing to set down their arms. Counterinsurgents must also limit their use of force in waging the war.”

Peacekeepers, on the other hand, should increase their ability and willingness to use force, says Lopez.

“While not fully compromising neutrality, they should also recognize their inherent support for the government put in place by the peace agreement directly or by subsequent elections,” she says. “Such a stance will enhance peacekeepers’ ability to deter violators while at the same time not violating the adherence to a defense of the mandate.”

Of course, this is not without difficulty. Neutrality is nearly sacred to the United Nations, and past missions where neutrality was compromised resulted in the deaths of peacekeepers and the inability to create peace. Peacekeepers are limited in capability and willingness to use force and are often too few in number to pose a challenge to opponents.

“As with the need for peacekeepers to be willing to utilize force, the need to limit force for counterinsurgents is often more apparent in the doctrine than in the practice,” says Lopez. “The desire to engage in force protection, limiting the danger to one’s own troops, can result in increased levels of violence.”

“But despite the limited likelihood of an adoption of these recommendations to peacekeepers and counterinsurgents to take on more aspects of the other, there is a possibility,” she says.

“The success of outside forces depends on the willingness and ability of local governments to build on the legitimacy the intervening actors helped to create. History has shown that successful interventions do shape the environment, providing security for the population, encouraging the local government to pursue the rule of law and provide for the population. Whether that intervening force is seeking to keep the peace or to keep their government in power, the better it can shape that environment, provide security, and encourage good governance, the more likely it is to succeed.”

Please let me know if there is anything further that I can provide, or if you would like a copy of her paper. We help Susquehanna University with some of its public affairs work.