After the end of the cold war, first world countries that had been supporting African countries for their own selfish interests suddenly withdrew from these areas. Because the United Nations Security Council is highly influenced by these countries, then the association along with many other international peace keeping bodies adopted a hands off approach to the African continent. This kind of attitude is what caused one of the greatest failures of the UN peacekeeping efforts in the Rwandan genocide.
The UN secretary General of 2005 – Kofi Annan acknowledged that the group had failed Rwanda on preventing one of the most horrendous crimes against humanity. (UN, 1998) The latter act depicted indifference on the part of the United Nations and this has been one of the areas of intense scrutiny about the organization. Proponents to this argument claim that the UN should not adhere to international biases about certain regions of the world and that it should carry out its mandate irrespective of this matter.
Consequently, it can be argued that this international organisation has clearly laid out rules and regulations with regard to prevention of armed conflict; however, their selectivity on particular areas is undermining their peace making role. It should however, be noted that the latter scenario is not the general trend within the African continent. In fact, it can be argued that this continent has taken up the largest chunk of peacekeeping operations within the United Nations. However, the conditions favouring intervention have been questionable given its inconsistency in the continent.
In fact, it can be argued that despite the many peacekeeping efforts that have been going on in Africa, the proportion of resources and time required for these interventions do not meet the challenges that are inherent in this region. Reconciliation of warring communities in coalition based governments The United Nations may engage in peacekeeping missions when a country had been formed out of the unification of differing regions, countries or communities. Theodorides (1982) explains this scenario under the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus.
The UN decided to participate in this mission three years after the formation of Cyprus as an independent state. Problems began arising after the rising conflict between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots with the latter’s rights being subdued by the former through the constitution. These tensions began showing through a violence outbreak that occurred in the year 1963 thus causing necessitating some interventions. The issues in Cyprus were also related to problems in constitution making.
There were complains that Turkey was interfering in the affairs of the United Kingdom and that it had intentions of engaging in aggression against the United Kingdom of Cyprus. In the subsequent year of 1964, the United Nations decided to enter Cyprus through the formation of an external body known as the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus. The body had been created so as to ensure that the rule of law was adhered to in this nation and that the 1963 violence between the communities was not propagated.
The United Nations Security Council carried out its peacekeeping operations through this body that had been set up specifically for the United Kingdom of Cyprus. The most instrumental time at which the UN depicted their importance and presence was during a coup de tat in the year 1974. At that time, some Cypriots originating from Greece attempted to seek alliance with their native country. On the other hand, their adversaries were interested in taking over a part of the northern part of the country.
Consequently, there was a need to unite these warring factions by negotiating ceasefire agreements and looking into some of the issues that these groups had to contend with. Besides that the Security Council made a number of resolutions that were centred on preventing the occurrences of the 1974 de tat. (Theodorides, 1982) Irrespective of some of the successes in Cyprus, peace negotiations by the UNFICYP had hit some snarls in a number of ways. This is because there are still certain challenges in this country that show how peace is yet to be achieved.
All in all, the latter body has indicated how the United Nations deals with security matters facing such united countries and what would necessitate their entry into such lands. In close relations to this body is another commission that was formed when Ethiopia and Eritrea were separated as nations. Their situation was somewhat different from the Cyprus one because in Cyprus, two different factions were unified whereas in Ethiopia and Eritrea, two different groups were separated.
In order to handle the challenges that emanate from such issues, it is imperative for the latter body to look into the overall questions that are prevalent with regard to the kind of problems facing them. (Theodorides, 1982) Following the separation of Eritrea and Ethiopia, the United Nations decided to participate in peaceful negotiations though the formation of an external body know as the Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Commission. The latter countries decided to sign an agreement in the year 2000 that was signed in Algiers. In order to ensure adherence to this agreement and respect to the rule of law, the latter commission was formed.
Most of the work carried out by the latter commission mostly deals with the challenges that are likely to crop up when dealing with two countries that have newly created boundaries. Some of these challenges include claims of injury and damage conducted by one government against another government. The formation of such a commission was in adherence to the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement signed by member states within this international body. Additionally, the latter commission was in accordance with the Geneva Convention that had been set up to ensure compliance to humanitarian and international laws.
There are a number of challenges that are facing such commissions owing to the fact that it can be extremely tedious to cope with multiple filing systems that may be related to judicial matters affecting both countries. This is especially the case because the Commission is not located within any of these two countries and it has been handling a large number of cases that mandate from either of these bodies. According to Article 5 of their rules and procedures, some clarity has been laid out with regard to filing mass claims. However, this issue is not a straight forward one because the latter body has chosen to operate without it.