The report calls for the peace support doctrine to be discussed more widely so that the doctrines do not conflict, and supports the British view that there should be a clear distinction between 'wider peace-keeping' and military intervention. It concludes that Nato and the US favour an approach to peace support in which the difference between traditional peace- keeping and 'peace enforcement' - intervening to protect 'safe areas' and forcibly separate belligerents - is part of a continuum and is determined only by the level of violence. The British and French insist there is a clear divide between peace-keeping as practised in Bosnia and Rwanda, and 'peace enforcement'.Reuse content
NATO has begun to undermine the peace-keeping activities of the United Nations and is developing theories which do not match those developed by nations with experience of UN operations, such as Britain and France, says a report published today, writes Christopher Bellamy. Nato, Peacekeeping and the United Nations, published by the British American Security Information Council, an independent study group, cites British, French, Nato and US documents dealing with doctrine for the complex and developing area of 'peace support'.