Breaking the Balance? The Impact of Peacekeeping Deployments on Civil–Military Relations

ABSTRACT

Since the 1990s, the face of United Nations (UN) peacekeeping has changed drastically, with personnel contributions now coming predominantly from developing countries. Some of the most fragile states worldwide, marked by limited state capacity and domestic conflict, have been deploying their security forces in UN peacekeeping missions. Drawing on the literature on civil–military relations, this article examines the impact that such deployments have on the domestic politics of troop contributing countries (TCCs). Using a detailed case study of Nepal’s deployment of peacekeepers, this article makes the following argument: the UN has not prioritized making peacekeeping deployments conditional on respect for civilian supremacy by the security forces of TCCs. Yet, deploying peacekeepers may bring significant institutional, political and financial benefits to security forces, most notably the military, which directly and indirectly impacts the civil–military relations in TCCs.

KEYWORDS:

• Peacekeeping
• civil–military relations
• Nepal

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr Andrea Birdsall, Dr Wilfried Swenden, Dr Sanja Badanjak, Dr Jan Pospisil, Kate Weir, Robert Forster, Ian Russell, Sharad Kant Adhikari, and participants at International Relations Research Group at the University of Edinburgh and the Annual Conference of Britain Nepal Academic Council’s Nepal Study Day 2019 and the three reviewers for their close reading and comments and which has been critical in giving the final shape to this article.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

About the Author

Monalisa Adhikari is a PhD candidate in International Relations at the University of Edinburgh. Her doctoral thesis explores varied forms of international engagements and their impact on political settlements in fragile and conflict affected states. Her interests include study of emergent powers (with a specific focus on China and India), liberal peacebuilding, state fragility, and political transitions in South and South East Asia.

Notes

1 Bellamy and Williams, “The West and Contemporary Peace Operations”; Findlay, “Challenges for the New Peacekeepers”. I define ‘developing countries’ as a loose term to mean countries in the Group of 77 at the United Nations.

2 UN website: https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/about-us.

3 Fund for Peace website (http://fundforpeace.org/global/) for more information on indicators.

4 Gisselquist, “Aid and Institution-Building in Fragile States”; Feeny, Posso, and Regan-Beasley, “Handle with Care”; Di John, “The Concept, Causes and Consequences.”

5 Human Rights Watch, “Collective Punishment”; De Waal, “The Real Politics”; De Waal, “The Real Politics”; Cunliffe, “From Peacekeepers to Praetorians.”

6 Dwyer, “Peacekeeping Abroad.”

7 Harig, “Re-Importing the ‘Robust Turn’”; Levin, Joseph and Nasirzadeh, “Selectorate Theory.”

8 Wilen, “Examining the Links”; Wilen “Improving Peacekeeping.”

9 Wilen, Ambrosetti, and Birantamije, “Sending Peacekeepers.”

10 Jowell, “The Unintended Consequences.”

11 Owens, “What Military Officers Need to Know.”

12 Kuehn, “Democratic Control of the Military”; Huntington “Soldier and the State”; Nordlinger “Soldiers in Politics.”

13 Gisselquist, “Aid and Institution”; Feeny, Posso, and Regan-Beasley, “Handle with Care”; Di John, “The Concept, Causes and Consequences.”

14 Schnabel and Ehrhart, “Post-Conflict Societies”; OECD, “Supporting Statebuilding.”

15 Keuhn and Lorenz, “Explaining Civil-Military Relations.”

16 Sharma, “What do Fragile States Really Need?”

17 Cottey, Edmunds, and Forster, “The Second Generation Problematic”; Kuehn, “Democratic Control of the Military”; Aguero, “Legacies of Transitions”; Croissant et al., “Beyond the Fallacy of Coup-ism”; Huntington “Soldier and the State”; Finer, “The Man on Horseback”

18 Perlmutter, “The Military and Politics in Modern Times,” 281.

19 Kuehn et al., “Conditions of Civilian Control.”

20 Welch, “Military Disengagement.”

21 Schnabel and Ehrhart, “Post-Conflict Societies.”

22 Croissant et al., “Beyond the Fallacy of Coup-ism.”

23 Stepan, “The New Professionalism.”

24 Alagappa, “Investigating and Explaining Change.”

25 Cottey, Edmunds, and Forster, “The Second Generation Problematic.”

26 Finer, “The Man on Horseback.”

27 Janowitz, “The Military in the Political Development.”

28 Ibid.

29 Aguero, “The New Double Challenge.”

30 Hamburg, “Military Withdrawal from Politics”; Siddiqa, “Thinking Beyond Huntington.”

31 Finer, “The Man on Horseback.”

32 Croissant, “Theorizing Civilian Control.”

33 Cunliffe, “Legions of Peace”; Jowell, “The Unintended Consequences.”

34 Bellamy and Williams, “The West and Contemporary Peace Operations”; Findlay, “Challenges for the New Peacekeepers”; Perkins and Neumayer, “Extra-Territorial Interventions”; Lebovic, “Uniting for Peace?”

35 Ibid.

36 United Nations Infantry Battalion Manual Volume I and Volume II.

37 Ibid.

38 Ibid.

39 ICG, “Restoring Democracy.”

40 Zaman and Biswas, “Bangladesh’s Participation”; Hakim, “Bangladesh.”

41 UN, “Daily Press Briefing.”

42 Bellamy and Williams, “The West and Contemporary Peace Operations.”

43 Curran, “More Than.”

44 Avezov, “Why Contribute”; Bellamy and Williams, “Explaining the National Politics.”

45 Levin, Joseph, and Nasirzadeh, “Selectorate Theory.”

46 Bove and Elia, “Supplying Peace.”

47 Ibid.

48 Lebovic, “Uniting for Peace?”

49 Bellamy and Williams, “Explaining the National Politics.”

50 Avezov, “Why Contribute?”

51 Ibid.

52 Levin, Joseph, and Nasirzadeh, “Selectorate Theory.”

53 Kathman and Melin, “Who Keeps the Peace”; Firsing, “Thinking Through.”

54 Krishnaswamy, “Pakistan’s Peacekeeping.”

55 Kuehn, “Democratic Control of the Military.”

56 Hamburg, “Military Withdrawal from Politics”, Croissant et al., “Beyond the Fallacy of Coup-ism.”

57 Rawal, “United Nations.”

58 Roodettes, “Peacekeeping and the Armed.”

59 Firsing, “Thinking Through.”

60 Cunliffe, “Legions of Peace.”

61 Leigeois and Deltenre, “Astuteness in Commitment.”

62 Coulon, Aronoff, and Scott, “Soldiers of Diplomacy.”

63 Finer, “The Man on Horseback.”

64 Sidhu, “What Drives South Asians to Peacekeeping?”

65 Parsons, “Peacekeeping Dividends”; Krishnasamy, “Pakistan’s Peacekeeping Experiences.”

66 Scobell, “Politics, Professionalism, and Peacekeeping”; Parsons, “Peacekeeping Dividends”; Siegel and Feast, “For Fiji’s rulers,”

67 Janowitz, “The Military in the Political Development.”

68 Zaman and Biswas, “Bangladesh’s Participation”; Hakim, “Bangladesh.”

69 Stepan, “The New Professionalism.”

70 Sirivunnabood and Ricks, “Professionals and Soldiers.”

71 International Crisis Group, “A Wake-Up Call.”

72 Cunliffe, “Legions of Peace,” 181.

73 Garb and Malešič, “The Causes of Trust.”

74 Sengupta, “U.N. Peacekeepers’ Pay Dispute.”

75 Ibid.

76 Saha, “UN Peacekeeping and Bangladesh.”

77 Siddiqa, “The Evolution of Civil-Military Relations.”

78 Ibid.

79 Coulon, Aronoff, and Scott, “Soldiers of Diplomacy.”

80 Zaman and Biswas, “Providing Peacekeepers.”

81 Basnet, “Sainya Pujibad.”

82 UN Peacekeeping website: https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/about-us.

83 Remarks by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

84 Dixit, “Peace Politics of Nepal”; Jha, “Battles of the New Republic.”

85 Interview in Nepal, 2017, Expert on SSR in Nepal.

86 Interview in Nepal, 2017, Academic with expertise on the Nepal Army.

87 Thapa and Sharma, “Democracy building.”

88 Ibid. The Army argued for having the King retain his position as the supreme commander, which led to a compromised constitutional position, where though the Army was institutionally placed under the Ministry of Defence, the King continued as the supreme commander of the Army.

89 Whelpton, “History of Nepal.”

90 Sotomayor, “The Nepalese Army.”

91 Interview (A) in Kathmandu, April 2017, Expert on SSR in Nepal.

92 Interview (B) in Kathmandu, April 2017, Expert on SSR in Nepal.

93 Desch, “Soldiers, States, and Structures.”

94 Gautam, “Sena.”

95 Dahal, “Shanti Sena.”

96 Rawal, “United Nations.”

97 Advocacy Forum-Nepal, “Vetting.”

98 Martin, “Opportunities Lost.”

99 ICG, “Nepal: Peace and Justice.”

100 von Einsiedel and Salih, “Background Paper.”

101 ICG, “Nepal: Peace and Justice.”

102 Rawal, “United Nations.”

103 Bohora, “Swarthi Netrityo.”

104 Sotomayor, “The Nepalese Army.”

105 Interview in Nepal, August 2017, Expert on Peace Process.

106 Article 5.3, Agreement on Monitoring of Management of Arms and Armies, December 2006, PAX database.

107 Advocacy Forum-Nepal, “Vetting in Nepal.”

108 Ibid.

109 Amnesty International, “Nepal: Bar Human Rights.”

110 Rawski and Sharma, “A Comprehensive Peace.”

111 Interview in Nepal, 2017.

112 Basnet, “Sainya Pujibad.”

113 Dahal, “Shanti Sena,” (Nepali).

114 Poudel, “Nepal Army Fund for Welfare.”

115 Interview in Nepal, 2017; Sotomayor, “Nepal.”

116 Interview in Nepal, 2017.

117 Pant, “Nepal’s Military Tries Its Hand at Investing.”

118 Interview in Nepal, August 2017, Expert on NA.

119 Firsing, “Thinking Through.”

120 Ghimire, “Optimised or Compromised?”

121 My Republica, “Nepal Army.”

122 Sotomayor, “Nepal.”

123 Cunliffe, “Legions of Peace,” 212.

Additional information

Funding

The PhD project on which this article is based is supported by Political Settlements Research Programme (www.politicalsettlements.org) funded by the Department for International Development (DFID), UK. However, the views expressed and information contained herein are not necessarily those of or endorsed by DFID which can accept no responsibility for such views or information or for any reliance placed on them. A part of the field research was made possible by the Civil Society Scholars Award by the Open Society Foundations (OSF) which allowed me to systematically review Nepali sources.