For the greater good?: “Good states” turning UN peacekeeping towards counterterrorism
| Date | 01 March 2019 |
| Author | John Karlsrud |
| Published date | 01 March 2019 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0020702019834725 |
| Subject Matter | Scholarly Essays |
Scholarly Essay
International Journal
2019, Vol. 74(1) 65–83
For the greater
! The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
good?: ‘‘Good states’’
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0020702019834725
turning UN
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijx
peacekeeping towards
counterterrorism
John Karlsrud
Research Group on Peace, Conflict and Development, Norwegian
Institute of International Affairs (NUPI), Oslo, Norway
Abstract
The usual suspects of middle power internationalism—small and middle powers such as
Canada, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, and Sweden—have all contributed to the
UN peacekeeping mission in Mali (MINUSMA). This article argues that while these and
other Western countries’ contributions to MINUSMA may still be characterized as
investments into UN peacekeeping reform and a rule-governed world order, the liberal
underpinnings of that commitment are withering. Instead, these countries seek to
enhance their own status. This is done by gaining appreciation for their contributions,
primarily from the US; strengthening their bids for a non-permanent seat on the UN
Security Council; and self-interested contributions to reform UN peacekeeping by efforts
to enable it to confront violent extremism and terrorism. Paradoxically, the article con-
cludes, when moving the UN towards counterterrorism and weakening the legitimacy of
the organization, Western states undermine a cornerstone of their own security.
Keywords
Canada, counterterrorism, ‘‘good states,’’ liberal internationalism, middle powers, the
Netherlands, Norway, peacekeeping, status, UN
The participation of Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden in the UN
Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) has been
Corresponding author:
John Karlsrud, Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, C.J. Hambros Plass 2D, Dep 0033, Oslo, Norway.
Email: jka@nupi.no
66
International Journal 74(1)
termed a ‘‘return’’ by European states to UN peacekeeping.1 Western member
states have been vigorously welcomed back to UN peacekeeping due to their
more advanced militaries and capabilities. These member states bring significant
capabilities, innovation, and financial and political power, and their contributions
also have important impacts on UN peacekeeping and the UN more widely, in
material, discursive, doctrinal, and operational terms.
In policy circles, the return has been celebrated, as Western member states can
contribute niche capabilities in dire demand, such as surveillance drones, attack
helicopters, special forces, counter-IED (improvised explosive device) teams, as
well as share experiences and practices developed over a long period of counter-
insurgency and counterterrorism warfare, in, for example, Afghanistan and Iraq.
In Mali, MINUSMA is mired in a situation where these experiences and practices
unfortunately are increasingly relevant, and future UN peacekeeping missions may
be deployed to Libya, Somalia, and Syria, making Mali a key testing ground for
the future from this perspective. However, while Western member states may
indeed have lessons to share, the article argues that their contributions to
MINUSMA have been a mixed blessing. While Western member states have
been arguing for reform to improve the effectiveness of peacekeeping, their partici-
pation has by and large been a ‘‘mission within the mission,’’ marked by limited
ability to integrate with other troops and reluctance to operate within the principles
and guidelines of UN peacekeeping.
This discrepancy between the will to contribute and the aversion to integrate
into the UN mission may appear somewhat puzzling, or even contradictory. When
approached from a more instrumental perspective, though, the practices of the
Western contributors to MINUSMA appear less perplexing. Traditionally, the
literature on small and medium states’ contributions to UN peacekeeping has
seen these contributions and similar engagement in world politics as expressions
of efforts to enhance status by being ‘‘good states’’ that promote and support the
implementation of a liberal international order.2 Recent literature has challenged
1.
Joachim Koops and Giulia Tercovich, ‘‘A European return to United Nations peacekeeping?
Opportunities, challenges and ways ahead,’’ International Peacekeeping 23, no. 5 (2016): 597–609;
John Karlsrud and Adam Smith, ‘‘Europe’s return to UN peacekeeping in Africa? Lessons from
Mali,’’ Providing for Peacekeeping 11 (New York: International Peace Institute, 2015). I will refer to
Western countries for the most part throughout the article, as Canada will also contribute troops to
MINUSMA, starting in August 2018. Note that this is a Western return to UN peacekeeping in
Africa, as Western peacekeepers have been present in some numbers in the UN operation in
Lebanon since its beginning. Western states have also previously contributed troops on the
African continent, but this has mostly been in the form of EU missions (e.g. European Union
Force (EUFOR) Democratic Republic of Congo 2006, EUFOR Chad and the Central African
Republic 2008–2009). A short-lived exception was the contribution of troops to the UN Mission
in the Central African Republic and Chad (MINURCAT) from 2009–2010, but this was the result
of a re-hatting of EUFOR Chad/Central African Republic into MINURCAT, and only on the
condition of a short-term engagement. The main European contributors were Denmark, Ireland,
Norway, and Poland.
2.
Christine Ingebrigtsen, ‘‘Norm entrepreneurs: Scandinavia’s role in world politics,’’ Cooperation
and Conflict 37, no. 1 (2002): 11–23; Peter Lawler, ‘‘The good state: In praise of ‘classical’ inter-
nationalism,’’ Review of International Studies 31, no. 3 (2005): 427–449; John Karlsrud, Norm
Karlsrud
67
this view and argued that Nordic states have engaged on a path of more militarized
activism in order to improve their participation and status vis-a-vis the US.3
Nevertheless, this literature has remained focused on engagements in the ‘‘hard’’
end of international security, such as participation in the coalitions of the willing in
Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.
This article widens the scope of this literature. Methodologically, it follows in
the footsteps of de Carvalho and Neumann and studies how small and middle
powers seek status by’’ providing military contributions to the UN stabilization
mission in Mali.4 Contrary to the ‘‘good states’’ literature,5 the article argues that
these states’ contributions to MINUSMA are primarily motivated by instrumental
strategies for status-enhancement, with limited regard for the potential liberal or
illiberal effects of their contribution on UN peacekeeping. The article argues that
these states seek to enhance status among greater powers and other peers to
improve the relationship and strengthen cooperation with the US and key allies
deploying to the same mission. Another important feature is that contributions are
regularly made in conjunction with bids for a non-permanent seat on the UN
Security Council. A third feature of these contributions is that they are seen as
efforts to reform principles, doctrines, and guidelines to make the tool of UN
peacekeeping itself more relevant to what are perceived as the main global security
challenges of the 21st century: violent extremism and terrorism.
The result is a short-term engagement with an ambition to change the structural
preconditions for UN peacekeeping without a strategic understanding of the
longer-term implications of this engagement. The article argues that contrary to
previous theorizing of ‘‘good states’’’ engagement in UN peacekeeping, the contri-
butions to MINUSMA may actually undermine the liberal character of UN peace-
keeping, and, indeed, the organization itself.
The article is based on 59 semi-structured interviews conducted during field
work in Mali, New York, and Addis Ababa from 2015 to 2018, as well as a
review of policy and academic literature in the public and private domains. The
article proceeds as follows. First it provides an introduction to the literature on
status and ‘‘good states.’’ Second, it looks briefly at the history of Western partici-
pation in UN peacekeeping since the end of the Cold War and then investigates
Change in International Relations: Linked Ecologies in UN Peacekeeping Operations (Abingdon:
Routledge, 2016); William Wohlforth, Benjamin de Carvalho, Halvard Leira and Iver B.
Neumann, ‘‘Moral authority and status in international relations: Good states and the social dimen-
sion of status seeking,’’ Review of International Studies 44, no. 3 (2017): 1–21.
3.
Nina Græger, ‘‘From ‘forces for good’ to ‘forces for status’? Small state military status seeking,’’ in
Benjamin de Carvalho and Iver B. Neumann, eds, Small State Status Seeking: Norway’s Quest for
International Standing (Abingdon: Routledge, 2015): 86–107; John Karlsrud and Kari M. Osland,
‘‘Between self-interest and solidarity: Norway’s return to UN peacekeeping?,’’ International
Peacekeeping 23, no. 5 (2016): 784–803; Rasmus B. Pedersen, ‘‘Bandwagon for status: Changing
patterns in the Nordic states status-seeking strategies?,’’ International Peacekeeping 25, no. 2 (2017):
217–241.
4.
Iver B. Neumann and Benjamin de Carvalho, ‘‘Introduction: Small states and status,’’ in de
Carvalho and Neumann, Small State Status Seeking, 1–21.
5.
See, for example, Ingebrigtsen, ‘‘Norm entrepreneurs,’’ and Lawler, ‘‘The good state.’’
68
International Journal 74(1)
more closely the rationales that sparked the contribution to MINUSMA. The final
section argues that...
To continue reading
Request your trial