What Are The Arguments Against The Bureaucracy Of Peacekeeping
692 Words3 Pages
Michael Barnett, a political officer from the US, was assigned to cover the negotiations on mandates in the United Nations Assistance Mission in Rwanda (UNAMIR). He received firsthand knowledge and experience on the UN's difficult and indifferent position during the political instable, quickly escalating genocide in Rwanda following the death of President Habyarimana. The central focus of the article was on reasoning for why there was a lack of intervention from the UN and member states during the crisis. Barnett states the lack of intervention was first to protect the future of the UN, second there were complications with national interest or national security, and finally the bureaucracy of peace-keeping. This lack of intervention was justified…show more content… For many member states, Rwanda also lacked benefits for their national interest and would jeopardize their personal national security. Many felt that the risks resulting from intervening would be more costly than the benefits. This is how the bureaucracy of peacekeeping is to theoretically work in favour of the common good. Consequently, this bureaucracy of peace-keeping actually allows for a selective application of rights among community members (pg. 14). Thus making it difficult to reduce the status of privilege among identity criteria such as race, religion, and gender. This provides justification that intervening was not in the interest of the common good (pg. 14). A majority of the focus of the article was directed towards who was to blame for the lack of intervention in Rwanda. Barnett's article was well written and his arguments explaining the lack of intervention at a political standpoint intrigued me, I believe there needs to be more developed articles that provide the useful details like the one's by Barnett in combination with potential solutions. The article was informative to understand why the UN and nation members chose to not intervene, however