[1] I plan on discussing and analyzing the decisions behind the various types of intervention (peacekeeping, peace enforcement, and peace building) used in the three countries of Somalia, Rwanda and Bosnia.
Somalia intervention was UN/US led and considered a failure (quick pull out). Intervention was "Peace Enforcement".
Rwanda intervention was led by the UN and considered a failure. Intervention was "Traditional Peacekeeping", a change from peace enforcement due to the failure in Somalia.
Bosnian intervention was NATO/UN led and considered a 'success' (depending on what the standards of success are measured on), and reconstruction efforts continue to this day. Bosnia was generally a mix of peacekeeping, peace enforcement and peace building.
[2] I think the question I want to pose is either:
How much do major powers affect UN peacekeeping operations and decisions
or
What drives member states of the United Nations to affect peacekeeping operations? Military success? Security? Strategic importance? ... this question would be posed since it is obvious that major powers affect un decisions.
[3]
Finally, not sure the best way to structure this paper. It will be 15-20 pages in length. I was considering 5-7 pages per 'case study' of each country would be the easiest (both for the reader and the writer). This would also be in a loose time-date order. I would write about Somalia first, Rwanda and finally Bosnia (to wrap everything up).
Thanks,
Tom
Hi Thomas,
Your thesis thrives on three things:
1. Specificity
2. Your opinion
3. Whether your thesis can be debated
In this case, you don't want to pose a question, but give a forceful statement backed by evidence.
Perhaps you should look at why peacekeeping operations failed in Rwanda and Somalia, but "succeeded" in Bosnia. Why was the UN successful with Bosnia? Was it the mix of peacekeeping tactics?
If you simply go with "How much do major powers affect UN peacekeeping operations and decisions," it might be too vague.
Your second choice, "What drives member states of the United Nations to affect peacekeeping operations? Military success? Security? Strategic importance?" is better. But maybe narrow it a little more and say why the UN got involved with these countries.
As for your structure: Case studies is one way to go. But you have to make sure to tie everything together. Otherwise, you're essentially writing three different papers (as there is no connection among the topic countries).
Good luck!
-Nick
"peacekeeping operations failed in Rwanda and Somalia due to internal state politics, affecting the international community response"
Somalia failed because the US didn't want more American soldier deaths overseas for a war that wasn't in its 'national interest'
Rwanda failed because the US (and the UN) didn't want another Somalia
But at the same time (same time frame), the US, UN and entire internatinoal community put resources towards the peacekeeping effort in the former Yugoslavia.
Really, I'm trying to wrap this multi-dimensional question/statement into a nicely written out and easy to understand thesis.
1. Rwanda failed because of Somalia, but Bosnia succeeded. Mostly because there was a greater concern of security and strategic interest at stake in the former Yugoslavia. \\
So, I could actually state that the UN and its member States aren't actually interested in humanitarian affairs or crimes against humanity (generally, the charter of the UN), but instead international events that affect the member State in regards to security, strategic interest, international relations and economics.
