Unarmed civilian peacekeeping: a potential response to peacekeepers’ and critical scholars’ parallel critiques of multidimensional peace operations?

This paper examines parallel perceptions of peacekeepers engaged in multidimensional peacekeeping missions, with critiques in critical peace studies literature. Recent literature critiques the liberal peace agenda which underpins the mandates and programs of many current peace operations. Among central issues are a concern with the everyday wellbeing of local civilians, the ways in which an imposition of agendas may not contribute to this wellbeing, and the lack of local ownership. This analysis has interesting parallels to the views of peacekeepers interviewed in a recent research project regarding effective peacekeeping, which included former peacekeepers from 18 countries who served in military, police or civilian positions. Peacekeepers work in specific communities and understood their work based on experiences with local people. They analysed effectiveness primarily at this micro level. These peacekeepers understood effective peacekeeping to include preventing violence and protecting people. Effective peacekeeping was undermined by the lack of attention to local needs, the imposition of external agendas and the inappropriate use of force. Unarmed civilian peacekeeping with a primary focus on protecting people and preventing violence nonviolently, and which is generally not linked to multilateral interventions, shows promise of addressing both sets of concerns and promoting local ownership and wellbeing.