"Peacekeepers become a substitute for a political solution, when in fact they should be an enabling force for a political solution." The panel "What Future for UN Peacekeeping in the Eastern Mediterranean?" brought together Annika Hilding Norberg (
@AnnikaHildingNo), Head of Peace Operations and Peacebuilding at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP) (
@TheGCSP); Dr Arthur Boutellis (
@aboutellis), Non-resident Senior Adviser at the International Peace Institute (IPI) (
@ipinst); and Dr Judith Vorrath of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) (
@SWPBerlin), moderated by Dr Carsten Wieland, Senior Associate at the PRIO Cyprus Centre (
@PRIOCyprus).
Dr Boutellis said UNIFIL (
@UNIFIL_), almost 50 years old with some 8,000 peacekeepers from around 50 countries, will end not because its mandate succeeded but because the US would not back its renewal. Since 2006, it has been a stabilising force, monitoring the ground and acting as liaison between Lebanon and Israel. Peacekeepers can contain low-level incidents, he said, but cannot prevent all-out war when underlying political causes go unaddressed. Peacekeeping remains a cost-effective "small investment in peace with a relatively high return".
Ms Hilding Norberg acknowledged that "the situation is of course dire", with conflicts doubling and multilateral mechanisms under intense pressure, but said that is all the more reason not to abandon peacekeeping. Future missions need lighter footprints, sharper analysis and new technology, and small, trusted observer missions offer a model. "UN peacekeeping needs to step up and keep up, if not ahead of the time."
Dr Vorrath said the 11 ongoing missions must be politically backed and properly financed, so they can one day withdraw on the basis of a solution rather than suddenly. New missions face hard preconditions: consent of the parties and agreement in the Security Council. Coalitions and EU missions can support, she argued, but there is no real alternative to the UN on the horizon.