Participants in Peace-Keeping Forces
| DOI | 10.1177/001083677601100102 |
| Date | 01 March 1976 |
| Author | Johan Galtung,Helge Hveem |
| Published date | 01 March 1976 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Participants
in
Peace-Keeping
Forces*
JOHAN
GALTUNG
Chair
in
Conflict
and
Peace
Research,
University
of
Oslo
HELGE
HVEEM
International
Peace
Research
Institute,
Oslo
Galtung,
J.
&
Hveem,
H.
Participants
in
Peace-Keeping
Forces.
Cooperation
and
Conflict,
XI
,
1976,
25-40.
The
article
is
based
on
a
questionnaire
mail
study
of
participants
in
the
United
Nations
peace-keeping
forces
in
Gaza
and
in
the
Congo.
It
is
focussed
on
the
problem
of
closeness
vs.
distance
to
the
phenomenon
of
peace-keeping.
By
and
large
the
studies
show
that
the
participants
wanted
more
closeness
to
the
local
inhabitants,
whereas
the
way
the
UNPKF
was
organized,
was
based
on
considerable
distance.
There
was
also
a
demand
for
a
much
higher
level
of
insight
in
the
conflict
and
the
operation
than
had
been
given
during
the
briefings.
Questions
about
the
attitude
to
the
concrete
conflicts
reveal
relatively
standard
Western
attitudes
and
prejudices
both
in
the
Middle
East
and
the
Congo
theaters.
Finally,
the
possibility
of
some
type
of
peace-keeping
force
based
on
more
closeness
and
involvement
is
dis-
cussed,
concluding
that
under
the
present
political
conditions
this
would
hardly
be
feasible.
Johan
Galtung,
Chair
in
Conflict
and
Peace
Research,
University
of
Oslo.
Helge
Hveem,
International
Peace
Research
Institute,
Oslo.
1.
PEACE-KEEPING:
DISTANCE
OR
CLOSENESS
This
report
is
based
on
a
questionnaire
investigation
of
Norwegian
participants
in
peace-keeping
forces
in
Gaza
(UNEF)
and
in
the
Congo
(ONUC).
The
data
were
gathered
by
the
International
Peace
Research
Institute
in
Oslo
in
1967,
based
on
the
work
of
a
research
group
that
had
prepared
the
questionnaire.
In
the
research
group
former
participants
in
these
peace-keeping
forces
also
took
part,
and
the
questionnaire
was
ad-
ministered
to
a
sample
of
the
about
13,000
Norwegians
who
at
that
time
had
served
in
the
UN
forces.
They
were
di-
vided
into
four
groups:
privates
and
offi-
cers
(including
NCOs)
in
the
Gaza
and
the
Congo
operations,
and
the
total
num-
ber
of
respondents
was
1,319.2
The
sample
was
stratefied,
and,
being
a
mail
questionnaire,
it
should
not
be
claimed
that
the
answers
are
entirely
represen-
tative,
but
on
the
other
hand
the
ten-
dencies
are
often
very
clear
and
found
in
most
of
the
four
groups,
so
we
would
be
inclined
to
rely
on
them,
particularly
where
they
are
consistent.
The
general
theoretical
problem
to
be
explored
can
be
formulated
very
simply:
what
was
the
role
of
the
UN
soldier,
as
seen
by
some
of these
soldiers
them-
selves ?
More
particularly,
where
was
it
located
on
a
scale
ranging
from
the
most
minimum
role
definition
to
a
maximum
role
conception?
Or
formulated
different-
ly,
where
was
it
located
on
an
axis
from
distance
from
the
social
reality
in
which
they
were
embedded
to
closeness
and
involvement?
It
may
immediately
be
objected
that
this
is
a
pseudo
question,
for the
defini-
tion
of
the
UN
soldier
as
it
comes
out
of
instructions
given
to
them
from
the
UN
or
from
national
commands,
not
to
men-
tion
from
local
commanders,
is
relatively
clear:
it
is
a
minimum
role
with
a
cer-
tain
amount
of
distance
from
the
scene.
The
task
is
that
of
keeping
peace,
not
of
making
it
or
building
it.
More
concretely,
the
task
is
like
that
of
a
fire
brigade,
to
be
on
duty,
on
constant
call,
close
enough
to
be
able
to
act
quickly,
yet
an
observer
rather
than
a
participant.
As
for
the
fire
brigade
the
task
includes
observation
of
any
kind
of
small
incident,
’brush-fire’
26
that
might
escalate
into
the
big
event.
Unlike
the
fire
brigade,
however,
there
was
the
implicit,
possibly
rather
demo-
ralizing
assumption
that
the
bigger
the
final
event
the
less
likely
the
participation
of
UN
peace-keeping
forces -
as
was
finally
brought
out
clearly
during
the
days
of
June
1967.
On
the
other
hand,
like
the
fire
brigade,
the
UN
peace-keep-
ing
forces
(UNPKF)
do
not
really
act
at
the
micro
level;
like
the
fire
brigade
participant
they
are
not
stationed
in-
side
private
homes,
peering
into
local
fireplaces
or
the
hearts
and
minds
of
men
and
women
everywhere
in
order
to
see
whether
something
might
be
brewing.
So,
as
a
conclusion,
there
is
no
doubt
that
the
role
is
defined
in
a
relatively
minimal
sense
and
at
a
social,
if
not
geographical,
distance
from
the
scene.
The
concept
is
that
of
a
soldier,
an
ex-
pert
in
violence
both
in
the
sense
of
deterring
it
and
in
the
sense
of
using
it
skillfully,
minimally,
so
as
to
prevent
more
extensive
use
of
violence.
Since
ultimately
violence
may
have
to
be
used,
though
not
on
a
large
scale,
social
dis-
tance
may
be
desirable
in
order
to
keep
peace -
for
the
same
reason
as
the
police
forces
in
many
countries
are
never
sta-
tioned
in
the
cities
or
the
villages
from
which
they
come,
always
somewhere
else
where
they
can
exercise
their
sometimes
unpleasant
duties
unimpeded
by
excessive
closeness.
But
there
is
also
the
other
role
con-
ception
better
expressed
in
such
terms
as
’peace-making’
and
‘peace-building’.3
3
In
this
case
the
task
is
not
merely
to
keep
the
potential
belligerents
apart,
but
rather
to
weld
them
together
in
a
functional,
equitable,
accepted
social
framework.
These
are
also
third
party
roles,
an
out-
sider
is
offering
his
good
services,
for
instance
as
a
mediator
or
as
social
plan-
ner
with
a
particular
view
to
solving
con-
flict
through
cooperation
between
parties.
In
that
case
very
detailed
knowledge
of
the
local
situation
is
needed,
but
also
more
than
that:
one
practically
speaking
has
to
be
a
part
of
the
local
situation
to
the
point
where
one
is
no
longer
a
third
party
but
a
new
party,
for
instance
by
filling
new
roles
that
did
not
formerly
exist;
in
close
interaction
in
everyday
life
with
all
parties
to
the
conflict.
This
is
what
usually
happens
when
the
central
government
of
a
country
builds
institu-
tions
in
the
periphery
tom
by,
for
in-
stance,
ethnic
strife,
interacting
with
both
sides,
thereby
constituting
an
organic
link
between
them.
Again
it
may
be
objected
that
this
may
be
so,
but
that
was
not
the
task
of
the
UN
peace-keeping
forces.
This
is
true,
but
it
may
also
be
that
it
should
have
been
the
task,
that
in
fact
one
is
dealing
with
a
misconception
because
of
the
endeavor
to
separate
the
peace-keep-
ing
function
from
peace-making
and
peace-building
functions.
After
all
police
officers
everywhere
are
parts
of
the
local
community
and
although
their
role
be-
havior
as
police
may
be
rather
circum-
scribed
they
enter
in
a
multiplicity
of
settings
that
makes
it
possible
also
to
exercise
other
roles,
for
instance
in
voluntary
associations,
in
community
work,
etc.
Thus,
they
are
able
to
trans-
cend
the
specificity
of
their roles
nar-
rowly
defined
and
enter
into
widespread,
perhaps-also
more
diffusely
defined
re-
lations
that
may
facilitate
their
work
pro-
foundly,
although
it
may
also
lead
to,
for
instance,
corruption.4
4
Without
arguing
what
the
function
of
the
UN
in
such
conflicts
could
be
or
should
be
in
the
future,
however,
there
is
a
more
immediate
problem
that
can
be
explored
by
means
of
such
question-
naires :
how
do
the
participants
them-
selves
see
the
situation?
Where
are
they
located
on
the
spectrum
mentioned
above?
What
kind
of
problems
are
there?
Where
does
the
role
conception
look
relatively
clear?
Where
is
it
rather
diffuse?
With
that
relatively
broad
pro-
blem
definition
we
now
turn
to
the
data.
To continue reading
Request your trial