The editorial answers you | Peacekeepers in Ukraine?

Do you have questions about our editorials? Questions about hot topics in the news? Each week, the editorial team responds to readers of The Press.

Alexandre Sirois
The Press

After Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech in the Canadian Parliament, Elizabeth May, the former leader of the Greens, called on Canada to be creative in “saving” Ukraine.

“When the right tools aren’t there, my God, let’s invent them!” “, she launched. She rightly alluded to the crucial role played by Canada in the creation of the Blue Helmets in the late 1950s.

It was then an innovation. But in the current circumstances, in Ukraine, the use of blue helmets is not an option.

“The UN can only send blue helmets when the parties to the conflict have signed a ceasefire or a peace agreement and accepted the deployment of this military force. The action of the UN is based on the consent of the parties,” explains Jocelyn Coulon, researcher at the Center for International Studies and Research at the University of Montreal (CERIUM).

However, until proven otherwise, there is no truce on the horizon. The Russian invasion continues and the destruction of Ukraine accelerates. It is hard to see how the two parties would come to an agreement to give the green light to a peace mission.

The idea is appealing, however, while our inability to protect Ukraine is hopeless. The Polish Deputy Prime Minister, Jarosław Kaczyński, who recently visited the Ukrainian capital, himself suggested sending a “peace mission protected by armed forces” to Ukraine.

But at NATO, we quickly expressed “serious reservations on this subject”, reported Agence France-Presse.

“I understand that we want to look for solutions, but this one involves a lot of risks, and that’s why it’s never going to happen,” says Anessa Kimball, director of the University’s Center on International Security. Laval, who also underlines the limits linked to the mode of operation of the UN in such a case.

Along the same lines, another reader of The Press, Pierre Brassard, wonders about the usefulness of the UN. “If it’s good for anything, what good is it? And I thought it was to prevent situations like this from happening. »

It is often frustrating, indeed, to see that the five major powers – which represent the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, including Russia – enjoy immense power over the organization, including a right to veto.

It’s frustrating, but it’s important to remember that if these conditions hadn’t been met, “we wouldn’t have been able to create this organization,” says Anessa Kimball. However, the world needs this forum because “States need to collaborate and try to maintain stability”.

Let us agree: the UN is necessarily an imperfect institution.

The Blue Helmets themselves have experienced failures that will be remembered for a long time. Particularly at the beginning of the 1990s, in Rwanda and Bosnia, where genocides took place when peace had collapsed, despite the presence of the soldiers who were to maintain it.

In short, the UN has suffered painful failures over the past few decades and its powerlessness in the face of a war such as the one unfolding in Ukraine is evident.

But that’s no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

We should not forget the successes of the UN in matters of peace and national security, recalls Jocelyn Coulon. “She created some 70 peacekeeping missions, most of which were successful,” he said. El Salvador, Mozambique, Timor, Kosovo, Cambodia, etc. »

Not to mention all the rest of the work done by the international organization. “The UN is the economy, society, culture, vaccination, etc., recalls the expert. Because there is the UN as an organization, but also what is called the United Nations system, which brings together the major international agencies such as UNESCO, the World Health Organization and the United Nations united for food and agriculture. So yes, the UN is good for something. And in general, the balance sheet is mostly positive. »