Rule-based and Ends-based Moral Tradition in Terms of Peacekeeping Forces

 Analyzing the morality of peacekeeping forces in unstable states can become exceptionally complicated. A state’s move to employ its own forces to peacekeep in another state could be thought of as an act of either rule-based or ends-based moral tradition.

One may see the act of employing peacekeeping forces in another state as following the rule-based tradition by stating that they are necessary for safeguarding against repeated outbreak of war or, more contemporarily, uncontrollable situations– ones in which human rights are violated and crimes against humanity are frequent. These situations often occur when governments are too weak or corrupt to manage such situations independently. In this manner, one may see the act of employing peacekeeping as a necessary act, moral in itself, because its purpose is “solely” (at least at face value) to protect against cruel and/or unnecessary violence and death. As the UN Peacekeeping Principles and Guidelines document indicates, the UN attempts to follow a rule-based moral tradition– peacekeeping forces employed in a certain state exist solely to maintain peace and stability in the area. Forces are called for in a state in which crimes against humanity are taking place, despite the end result. In 1999, Secretary General Kofi Annon demanded a peacekeeping force for East Timor, a then-region seeking independence from occupying Indonesia. The UN went through with sending troops to the region, despite the actions the Indonesian government could have taken against them or the civilians directly involved. Because the force sent was very small, the results of the UN’s move to implement a peacekeeping envoy cancelling out its good intentions (in some opinions, like the US providing famine relief to the Soviet Union) was a credible possibility. In this situation, the UN followed a rule-based moral tradition.

 Yet, one may also think of the employment of peacekeeping forces as the act of a state following an ends-based moral tradition. This makes sense if one says that the way in which the peacekeeping forces are employed or their means of insuring peace could be immoral, but done in the hopes of achieving the moral aim of preventing unnecessary violence/death/war. This could be said of the peacekeeping forces employed in Rwanda by the United Nations, because although they were there to protect civilians, they were removed once conditions worsened during the genocide for their safety. This action implies that the lives of the peacekeepers are more important than the lives of the civilians they were sent to protect, because unlike said civilians, they received special air operations that removed them to safety– they were thus more valued by the leaders of the international organization. The same could be said of the US peacekeeping forces sent to Somalia in 1992-93. Because 18 US soldiers were killed in an ambush, the US removed the remaining peacekeepers from the country. This is another scenario in which the lives of the peacekeepers are more valued than the civilians they were sent to protect, and correlates with the ends-based tradition of peacekeeping forces as having moral aims, but immoral means. In other words, whereas it is moral to send troops to an area with civil strife with the purpose of providing stability and security, it is immoral to assume in the initial steps of the operation that the American, French, British, etc. lives are worth more than the lives of the population they are peacekeeping.