ABSTRACT
If peacekeeping were to be understood under the terms within which it was defined in the 1 950s, then many of the current difficulties in what ostensibly pass as peacekeeping operations would in all likelihood have been avoided. But the reality is that peacekeeping operations have been transformed in the post-Cold War period, such that the boundaries between peacekeeping, peace enforcement and outright military intervention (especially for reasons which may not enjoy international consensus), have become ambiguous. 6 Certainly in the contemporary Middle East the distinctions have become badly blurred and while one example, that of Afghanistan, may enj oy broader international and UN support, another, Iraq, was conducted in the face of UN disagreement and objections. Whatever the level of international cooperation, both interventions represent operations far in excess of the peacekeeping activities envisaged in the 1 950s. Indeed both operations are emblematic of 'nation building, ' which while some commentators may consider falls under the general rubric of peacekeeping and peace operations, in reality represents a qualitative shift away from such limited operations towards a much more long-term and intensive exercise. Indeed, for the all the desire to distinguish the United Nations from the ill-fated League of Nations and pre-war colonialism, the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq bear more resemblance to the objectives of the inter-war mandated territories (with all that these implied) than to the limited peacekeeping operations of the post-war period. 7 This is especially apparent when one considers that the powers leading the military interventions have, on the cessation of hostilities, to transform themselves convincingly from protagonists in the recent conflict to 'impartial' peacekeepers/enforcers. An acceptance of this reality, rather than a continued and stubborn pretence otherwise, would represent a significant step in the right direction and allow for systematic long-term planning incorporating cultural realities. 8
As some writers have noted, the theoretical discussion of peacekeeping operations was framed within a European context determined by the imperatives of the Cold War. As a consequence the value system, cultural outlook and world-view
emanated from a distinctly Elll'Opean perspective. This is not a problem unique to the doctrine and theory of peacekeeping, as the voluminous literature on 'Orientalism' and its ills have indicated since the publication of Edward Said's book of the same name in 1 978. The issue of how social science and historical writing, generated within a Western cultural environment, may be satisfactorily applied to a non-Western case, is a problem familiar to most academics working on the non-Western world, and indeed has generated considerable controversy. Yet, perhaps the problem is more acute in the field of International Relations, since this is a discipline more indebted to the Western imperial and legal world-view than others. Moreover, while the problems of historical imagination, although controversial, may remain among the ivory towers of academe, peacekeeping and military intervention mark one of the most obvious points of contact between theory and practice. When one recognises that this point of contact rarely involves the most culturally attuned individuals, the scale of the problem becomes apparent. While in a Elll'Opean theatre, whatever the difficulties, a degree of cultural affinity may exist, in the Islamic Middle East, the sense of alienation is likely to be even more stark.
