The Obstacles to Peacekeeping in Afghanistan Are Greatly Exaggerated

The Obstacles to Peacekeeping in Afghanistan Are Greatly Exaggerated
Moroccan U.N. peacekeepers patrol Bangassou, Central African Republic, Feb. 14, 2021 (AP photo by Adrienne Surprenant).

Two weeks ago, in the aftermath of the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan, I argued that a United Nations peacekeeping mission should be considered as part of, or complementary to, a strengthened mandate for the U.N.’s existing political mission in the country, UNAMA. Since then, a group of over 20 scholars has been working with the University of Massachusetts-Amherst’s Human Security Lab to game out scenarios, consolidate the supporting evidence and make some research-backed guesses about whether peacekeeping should be on the table in Afghanistan today.

The emerging consensus in this group is that there are reasons to think it should, based on peacekeeping’s record of success in other places. To make it work, the U.N. would need to establish a role for itself in an intra-Afghan peace process aimed at averting a civil war between the Taliban and any remaining armed holdouts to the government that they are in the process of assembling. To that end, outside states should condition their recognition of the Taliban-led government on the group’s acceptance of intra-Afghan peace talks and a peacekeeping operation. That mission should be as large and strong as is acceptable to all parties, but even a small observer mission will very likely help. The U.S. and other NATO countries should contribute resources to it but not troops. Instead, Muslim-majority countries should take the lead on the ground, with inducements offered if needed.

Why might peacekeeping help? Lots of reasons. As Georgetown professor Lise Howard wrote in a Los Angeles Times op-ed this week, peacekeeping has historically been one of the global community’s most effective and underappreciated tools. A wealth of research shows that when neutral witnesses are present with the consent of the conflict actors, those actors are statistically likely to behave better and seek nonviolent forms of conflict resolution. In places where peacekeepers have mandates to protect civilians, the perception that they are on the side of civilians, rather than either warring party, reduces violence. And peacekeepers can help even when they’re relatively hamstrung vis-à-vis the warring parties; lots of violence in civil wars occurs among civilians, and peacekeeping helps tamp that down, too.  

Keep reading for free!

Get instant access to the rest of this article by submitting your email address below. You'll also get access to three articles of your choice each month and our free newsletter:

Or, Subscribe now to get full access.

Already a subscriber? Log in here .

What you’ll get with an All-Access subscription to World Politics Review:

A WPR subscription is like no other resource — it’s like having a personal curator and expert analyst of global affairs news. Subscribe now, and you’ll get:

  • Immediate and instant access to the full searchable library of tens of thousands of articles.
  • Daily articles with original analysis, written by leading topic experts, delivered to you every weekday.
  • Regular in-depth articles with deep dives into important issues and countries.
  • The Daily Review email, with our take on the day’s most important news, the latest WPR analysis, what’s on our radar, and more.
  • The Weekly Review email, with quick summaries of the week’s most important coverage, and what’s to come.
  • Completely ad-free reading.

And all of this is available to you when you subscribe today.

More World Politics Review