MILH422 AMU Week 7 Safe Zones for Refugees in PKO Missions Questions Question: In a UN press release from 2017, Bangladesh proposed “safe zones” for refuge

MILH422 AMU Week 7 Safe Zones for Refugees in PKO Missions Questions Question: In a UN press release from 2017, Bangladesh proposed “safe zones” for refugees, citing the influx of Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar. What are the synergies created in ongoing peacekeeping missions that would support “safe zones”? What are the drawbacks? What lessons from PKO history might suggest the success of the “safe zone” concept?Your initial post should be at least 350 words. Please respond with three follow-ups to other students. Responses should be a minimum of 150 words. The initial required post should be supported by course readings using parenthetical references. Click here for a copy of the discussion rubric. Follow the Turabian Quick Guide style for author/date. Click on the tab in the middle of the page.Initial Post Due: Thursday, by 11:55pm ETResponses Due: Sunday, by 11:55pm ET STUDENT 1:
n the Bangladesh Honorable Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s address to the United Nations (UN)
Secretary General, one of her main concerns was the refugee crisis occurring due to the influx of
Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar. She called on support from the UN and suggested that the
following actions be taken to deal with the situation. These actions include stopping all violence and
ethnic cleansing within Myanmar, sending a UN based “Fact-Finding” mission to Myanmar to
investigate human rights violations, establishing UN supervised “safe zones” to protect all citizens,
return displaced persons to their homes, and that the recommendations of the Kofi Anan
Commission Report be implemented completely and immediately.2
One positive thing about “safe zones” is that they are protected under International Humanitarian
Law. The purpose of establishing a safe zone is to provide an area where innocents fleeing conflict
can be protected. Safe zones are prohibited from being militarized and will not receive UN support if
they are. One flaw of creating a safe zone is that it often prevents displaced persons from migrating
outside of their country. They often become targets of violence at the hands of warring factions.
They have also been used to capture people who attempt to flee the country and as a recruitment
opportunity into domestic forces.1
In an article published in Foreign Policy titled “There Are No Real ‘Safe Zones’ and There Never
Have Been”, reporter Lauren Wolfe expresses that safe zones require basic services such as
providing food, water, health care, and sanitation. War typically diminishes these services making
them more difficult to acquire. This usually leads to crisis within “safe zones” since its inhabitants are
then struggling to survive even if they are separated from most of the violence. Another issue is
getting humanitarian aid into safe zones.3 For example, we have seen blockades set up in Syrian
neighborhood preventing humanitarian aid from reaching safe areas.
I think it is difficult to say whether the “safe zone” concept has ever been a success in peacekeeping
operations. I believe that we can say that possibly more lives were spared because of the safe
zones, but establishing a safe zone does not mitigate an ongoing conflict.
[1] Human Rights Watch “Q & A: Safe Zones and the Armed Conflict in Syria” HRW. March 16,
2017. Accessed May 15, 2019 https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/03/16/q-safe-zones-and-armedconflict-syria
[2] The 72nd Session of the UNGA, The United Nations, New York, 21 September 2017. Address by
H.E. Sheikh Hasina, Hon’ble Prime Minister, and Government of the People’s Republic of
Bangladesh.
[3] Wolfe, Lauren. “There Are No Real ‘Safe Zones’ and There Never Have Been”. March 30, 2017.
Foreign Policy. Accessed May 14, 2019. https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/30/there-are-no-real-safezones-and-there-never-have-been-syria-iraq-bosnia-rwanda/
STUDENT 2:
Safe zones by theory are a great idea to protect innocent civilians in an area where conflict has
gotten out of control. An area set aside that is protected by neutral forces, where the innocent can
live in protected areas serves to lessen the civilian death toll while the fighting and attempts at
peacekeeping are ongoing. Safe Zones, however, are often anything but safe.
The biggest drawback of safe zones are created by the lack of will and dedication of those creating
them. A safe zone requires many things to be effective. They require a steady supply of supplies
for those sheltered there, a strong enough force to prevent any attack from external forces and a
internal force to keep the peace and act as a police force to prevent crimes. Often though, the
commitment of forces is not enough to maintain all three of these things. For example, Srebrenica a
town in Bosnia was the sight of a masacure in which aprox 8,000 people lost their lives. Srebenica
was a designated safe area by the United Nations but they failed to commit forces to defend
it. “Amid chaos and terror, thousands of civilians fled Srebrenica for the nearby village of Potočari,
where a contingent of about 200 Dutch peacekeepers was stationed. Some of the Dutch
surrendered, while others withdrew; none fired on the advancing Bosnian Serb forces.”1 By
designating a safe zone, you will bring people there who seek to escape the violence and have a
safe place to stay. However, in the case of Srebenica, the United Nations lacked the dedication and
will to place a sufficient force there to protect the people in the safe area.
Another drawback to safe zones, is the easy target for human trafficking and other crimes. Lauren
Wolfe reported that “experts seem to agree that safe areas cannot work, whether because they trap
refugees who have the right to flee from moving, or because they are unable to prevent further
violence within an active war zone.”2 Most safe zones are not created with an eternal police force to
ensure that crime and violence within the zone is prevented and that those who are trying to take
advantage of displaced people are found and held accountable.
Safe zones are a good theory, but the number of personal needed and the logistical support to keep
them supplied and safe is massive and often lacks commitment from those trying to create them.
1. Smith, R. Jeffrey. “Srebrenica Massacre.” Encyclopædia Britannica. November 22, 2017.
Accessed May 16, 2019. https://www.britannica.com/event/Srebrenica-massacre.
2. Wolfe, Lauren. “There Are No Real ‘Safe Zones’ and There Never Have Been”. March 30, 2017.
Foreign Policy. Accessed May 14, 2019. https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/30/there-are-no-real-safezones-and-there-never-have-been-syria-iraq-bosnia-rwanda/
STUDENT 3:
In a UN press release from 2017, Bangladesh proposed “safe zones” for refugees, citing the
influx of Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar. What are the synergies created in ongoing
peacekeeping missions that would support “safe zones”? What are the drawbacks? What
lessons from PKO history might suggest the success of the “safe zone” concept?
Hello Class,
Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina of Bangladesh discussed at length the importance of using a
“Safe Zone” to protect the Rohingya who have been displaced by the “Ethnic Cleansing” of the
Rakhine region of Myanmar.
We have seen this same wholesale systematic murder of a minority in numerous places
across the globe, and in terms of the United Nations getting involved to attempt to stop it, the
Peacekeeping forces attempt to put together a “Safe Zone” for those being affected can go for
protection, and support by the Peacekeepers.1
The Synergy of Safe zones are fluid, and not easily defined, until a Peacekeeping Mission can
actually get on ground position to work from, and see the on the ground situation for themselves,
see how the sides of the conflict interact, and the Peacekeepers initiate one within either the
Mandate itself, special Security Council recommendation, or the follow-on mission, when the
killings are continuing within the Peacekeeping Mandate area of operations.
Not discussed is the point where in the very beginning of mission, the Mandate, and
international agreements will fail to come together, as this slaughter is ongoing within the talks
timeframe. Additionally, the Peacekeeping force has a finite amount of time to execute the
establishment, protection, and follow-on aide and peacekeeping support functions. An example
of this can be pointed to the current Syrian crisis, where Turkey has pretty much given a direct
number, in a roundabout way in the point in time when they would initiate a Safe Zone in Syria,
itself, based on NUMBERS of the population, and not in what is actually going on the ground in
real time of the mission itself.2
“Safe Zones,” are not a new concept, but in the execution the purpose is to just stop an
ongoing wholesale killing, ethnic cleansing, or blatant murder by the state of part of their
population.
However the peacekeeping force gets there, they come into a situation where they have to
participate and actually take a side, contrary to the popular image that they are impartial. Some
of the issues, such as lightly armed, or undermanned forces can also contribute to a situation
where the aggressor think that they can go into the “Safe Zone”. By drawing a clear line in the
sand, the UN force can have either additional firepower, or a reaction force to be at the ready in
case the aggressor want to overstep their bounds and attempt to kill those that the UN force are
there to protect in the safe zones.
As a lesson from the 1995 massacre in Srebrenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the facts are that
the Peacekeepers would have to take a side, by establishing a protective zone, or “Safe Zone” for
a portion of a population that is effectively being hunted down and murdered should be part in
parcel of the organizations Mandate, and as we have seen in international court ruling from The
Hague, that the Dutch Peacekeepers themselves were charged in violation of the Ethnic
Cleansing, if they are in the region, and can also be held responsible for murder as well.3
(1) UN News, Addressing Rohingya crisis, Bangladesh proposes UN-monitored ‘safe zones’ in
Myanmar, news.un.org, 2017, Accessed May 16,
2019,https://news.un.org/en/story/2017/09/566322-addressing-rohingya-crisis-bangladeshproposes-un-monitored-safe-zones-myanmar#.WiSM0EqnGUk
(2) Mark Leon Goldberg, Syria “Safe Zones?” www.undispatch.com, 2012, Accessed May 16,
2019, https://www.undispatch.com/syria-safe-zones/
(3) Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian, The Hague Just Reminded Us Why Safe Zones May Not Be Safe,
foreign policy.com, 2017, Accessed May 16, 2019, https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/28/thehague-just-reminded-us-why-safe-zones-may-not-be-safe-syria-srebrenica-iran-russia/
Bibliography
Allen-Ebrahimian, Bethany. “The Hague Just Reminded Us Why Safe Zones May Not Be
Safe.” foreign policy.com. 2017. Accessed May 16,
2019. https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/28/the-hague-just-reminded-us-why-safe-zones-maynot-be-safe-syria-srebrenica-iran-russia/.
Goldberg, Mark Leon. “Syria “Safe Zones?”‘ www.undispatch.com. 2012. Accessed May 16,
2019. https://www.undispatch.com/syria-safe-zones/.
UN News. “Addressing Rohingya crisis, Bangladesh proposes UN-monitored ‘safe zones’ in
Myanmar.” news.un.org. 2017. Accessed May 16,
2019.https://news.un.org/en/story/2017/09/566322-addressing-rohingya-crisis-bangladeshproposes-un-monitored-safe-zones-myanmar#.WiSM0EqnGUk.
•
WEEK 7
Lesson
•
Peacekeeping in the 21st Century
One point from last week’s discussion that bears repeating is the importance of national
power in international conflict resolution efforts. When examining an approach that’s typically
multilateral, such as peacekeeping, it’s easy to emphasize the role of global institutions such
as the UN, or regional military alliances like NATO. As such institutions have broadened the
concept of peacekeeping during the post-Cold War era, emphasizing humanitarian
objectives and various elements of nation-building, it’s fairly common for pivotal states to
take leadership roles in the crafting and execution of peacekeeping mandates. When pivotal
states are also regional powers, as was the case with Russia’s involvement in Georgia in
2008, that regional power’s interests go a long way towards determining what the
international community can realistically accomplish.
Remember too that a liberal-democratic philosophy underpins much of post-Cold War
peacekeeping, but some important members of the Security Council, such as Russia and
China, only partially endorse this philosophy, at best. What emerges from such diverging
perspectives is a pervasive tension between post-Westphalians who’re working slowly and
inexorably towards some form of global society, and those firmly rooted in the Westphalian
worldview that places a premium on national sovereignty and national interests.
The nation-state is alive and well in the post-9/11 world, despite reports of its demise after
the Cold War concluded. The credit for failures and successes of multilateral conflict
resolution efforts properly resides with the countries that make up the international
community. Thus, the demise of the old League of Nations was really a failure of the British
and French foreign policy of appeasement, and the UN similarly is a forum where its
member-states interact. Where powerful states perceive their national interests are at stake,
substantive global action is more likely. It’s rare indeed for such a power to act in an altruistic
fashion absent such national interests; the US did so in Somalia but is unlikely to do so again
any time soon.
Substantive action does not guarantee success, of course, because many of the situations
post-Cold War peacekeepers find themselves in are messy, intrastate affairs with no easy
solutions. Ultimately, I think one’s view of what peacekeeping can accomplish in the future is
dictated by his or her worldview, whether it be informed by some form of realism, liberalism,
a clash of civilizations, or something else entirely. There are no right answers here, but I
hope this course has helped you to think about some of these major issues that affect the
world we live in, and the next generation will inherit.
A liberal-democratic philosophy underpins much of post-Cold War peacekeeping, but some
important members of the Security Council, such as Russia and China, only partially endorse
this philosophy. What emerges from such diverging perspectives is a pervasive tension
between post-Westphalians who are working slowly and inexorably towards some form of
global society, and those firmly rooted in the Westphalian worldview that places a premium
on national sovereignty and national interests.
What are the peacekeeping missions today?
Source: https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/french-foreign-policy/united-nations/france-andthe-united-nations/article/infographic-un-peacekeeping-operations
As we wrap up this week’s lesson, please review this video on reform for peacekeeping
operations at the UN by former UN Ambassador Power from November 7, 2014. Her
premise is that conflicts in “faraway places” matter because such violence causes spillover
effects that impact all of international society. Instability also attracts terrorist groups.
Click here for the video by former Ambassador Samantha Power (52 minutes). Transcript
runs with the YouTube video.
In closing, “the United Nations does not have a monopoly on peace operations. While the
UN often provides legitimation, operations are sometimes conducted by regional
organizations, ad hoc coalitions, or hybrid arrangements involving UN and non-UN actors,
such as the African Union. The UN has paid increasing attention to peacebuilding and the
gendered dimensions of peace and security, with a number of important reports and
initiatives in these areas. Critics, however, point to severe shortcomings such as allegations
of sexual exploitation and abuse committed by some UN peacekeeping personnel” (Curtis
and Taylor 2017, 342).
References List
Curtis, Devon E. A., and Paul Taylor. 2017. “The United Nations.” In The Globalization of
World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, by John Baylis, Steve Smith and
Patricia Owens. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment