To UN or Not to UN: The Question of Nordic UN Peacekeeping

Full Report

As the Cold War came to an end UN peacekeeping underwent a radical change. Its remit transformed from one of maintaining ceasefires to include multi-dimensional engagements in states emerging from war through a range of measures, including the deployment of soldiers, but also the organisation of elections and building of democratic institutions.
"For the Nordic countries, the UN of the 1990s represented a natural and attractive framework for supporting peace operations globally", according to a new policy brief by the DANISH INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES (DIIS). Indeed, it appeared an ideal avenue for the outward promotion of values related to the Nordic welfare state model, which was considered a legitimate and worthwhile foreign policy objective in the early 1990s.
All the Nordic countries sharply reduced their contributions to UN peacekeeping operations after 1995, as events in Srebrenica in particular, but also the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, highlighted two major trends in peacekeeping. First, they demonstrated how quickly the UN had taken on a wide-ranging role in post-Cold War international conflict management, with a dramatic expansion in the number of missions and peacekeepers. Second, they showed the limitations of deploying lightly-armed peacekeepers in war zones who were only allowed to use force in self-defence. They proved unable to prevent mass killings in Srebrenica, and even had difficulty protecting themselves.
"Lack of robustness of UN peacekeeping in the 1990s drove the armed forces of the Nordic states away from the organisation," the DIIS stresses. "Ironically, the present expanded will of the UN to use force in peacekeeping operations contradicts what was the attraction of the UN framework immediately after the Cold War, namely its peaceful, neutral and non-violent approach to international conflicts. There is a strong sense among the Nordic states that the UN is not up to the task in Mali, and their hesitation has been reinforced, not eased, by engaging in the mission.
"However, as the only truly global organisation, it may also be the best option when it comes to solving matters of global peace and security. Making symbolic contributions is insufficient. This means that the Nordics must step up their UN game if they want to ensure its continued relevance."