ABSTRACT
Observers of United Nations peacekeeping often contend that contemporary operations are deployed where there is “no peace to keep”. The challenges facing peacekeeping on the ground and a global retrenchment in peacekeeping have called into question its relevance in resolving present and future wars. At the same time, research consistently suggests that peacekeeping operations are effective at reducing violence where there is “no peace to keep” and at enabling the work of mediators seeking negotiated solutions to war. This chapter suggests that this apparent paradox can be understood with reference to the role peacekeeping operations play in “holding the centre” of complex conflicts. This chapter illustrates how peacekeeping operations limit violence by creating physical and ideational space for interim understandings between stakeholders. It also highlights how peacekeeping operations moderate diverse geopolitical interests often brought to bear on the conflict. This chapter draws on the case of MINUSMA in Mali to suggest that while “holding the centre” illustrates the unique contributions of peacekeeping to resolving wars, it also highlights the limits of consent for the deployment of peacekeepers where there is said to be “no peace to keep”.
