Peacekeeping Forces in the State

When considering foreign peacekeepers in regards to the state, one must understand the motivations of both the state(s) providing peacekeepers and the state(s) in need of peacekeepers. These motivations can be analyzed through each major IR perspective – Realism, Liberalism, Radicalism, and Constructivism.

 Through a liberal view, the state is a process, made up of competing and fluid government and societal interests. Liberals would argue that a state should send peacekeepers into another state primarily because of the moral repercussions of not providing aid. Society plays a significant role in this process, often engaging in protests and rallies in order to raise awareness, in hopes that the government will respond and provide aid. This process can be observed with the genocide in Darfur, as the public has engaged in protests, fundraising endeavors, and movies – all in hopes to dictate U.S. foreign policy.

Constructivists see the state in a similar lens – as having been shaped by society and ideas, constantly in flux. This view, which is similar to liberalism, would likely also draw open morals in order to justify sending peacekeepers into another nation.

Realists oppose these two perspectives, believing each state to be a sovereign actor, motivated by a single national interest. This national interest seeks primarily to ensure security for the state. For this reason, a realist would argue that a state only sends peacekeepers into chaotic regions when it is in their best interests – quelling violence and creating stability in another state ensures that the security of the more powerful state won’t be threatened.

 The Radical view of the state is that the state is merely a pawn for the larger goals of the bourgeoisie in that particular state and for the international capitalist structure. Radicals would believe that a state’s entry into peacekeeping would be motivated by the societal elite and its collective desire to obtain a financial benefit – the general will of the public wouldn’t play a role. For example, if a country in the Middle East, rich in oil, were to erupt in chaos, the United States would likely send peacekeepers into the state in order to ensure stability. Radicals would see this action as being motivated by the United States’ desire to reap the benefits of a stable, oil-rich nation, not as a moral act or as an attempt to ensure its own security.

Additionally, when one is analyzing peacekeeping forces in the state, it is necessary to approach the effects of such forces on the state receiving aid, rather than  simply the one giving it. To realists, a state’s acceptance of another’s military occupation is an affirmation of that particular state’s weakness; in other words, the state receiving peacekeepers acknowledges its weakness and by default allies itself with the nation lending its peacekeeping forces. The receiving nation does so in an attempt to gain stability and security from the stronger state, with sacrifices of its own international power in return.

In the liberal perspective, receiving states are those with civil unrest beyond governmental control. These situations would arise from contention between individual groups, which hold powerful sway over the policies of the state. Such cases most likely involve decisions made outside the realm of the receiving state, but by other states collaborating in international organizations. This encroachment on a state’s soveignty holds legitimacy under the premise that governments of receiving states are destabilized/biased beyond rational/responsible decision-making. The decision to deploy troops into Sudan, as an [overused-- sorry!] example, was by no means made by the leader of the Sudanese government, Omar-al-Bashir. It was instead legislated by the UN, which determined that the Sudanese government was too involved with those committing crimes against humanity to be in a position to allow or not to allow peacekeeping forces into the Darfurian region.  

Radicals, like Realists, would simply state that a state receiving peacekeepers would be defined by that act– its receipt of troops would affirm its position in the periphery stratum. Receiving states are thus the individuals exploited by the donating states.

Lastly, constructivist thought would be more concerned with the effects of peacekeeping forces. A body of people from one state would, in most cases, hold different traditions/cultures/ideals than those of the state that they are occupying. In this manner, the people of receiving states would more likely face new ideological forces that could work with, against, or transform completely their identities. Such reactions would obviously depend on extenuating circumstances, such as the duration of the peacekeepers’ stay, the differences in culture/ideas, the extent of the civil unrest within the receiving state, et cetera. Constructivists would say that the westernization of Japan is largely (almost completely) attributable to its occupation by US peacekeeping forces after World War II.