Peace Support Operations in the Modern Strategic Environment
Will there be a return to "traditional" peacekeeping?
As if an echo from the past, there is renewed chatter about “peacekeeping” in the news and on social media these days. Having served as a peacekeeper for a year in the Middle East with the Multinational Force and Observers, and later having been employed for two years as the Director of Peacekeeping Policy in the Department of National Defence, I thought I'd take a moment to discuss what Peace Support Operations are; what they aren't; and how they can succeed.
While normally rolled into the inaccurately ubiquitous term "peacekeeping" Peace Support Operations are not a single instrument but a family of strategic approaches, of which peacekeeping is but one element, each with distinct risks, authorities and resource demands.
In 1956 Canada under the leadership of Prime Minister Lester Pearson helped crystallize what has become the traditional model of peacekeeping: a neutral, lightly armed UN force interposed between states that had consented to stop fighting. That innovation, born in the Suez crisis, became the template for what many still imagine when they hear peacekeeping and in some cases is even referred to as "Pearsonian" peacekeeping.
Types of Peace Support Operations
At present, the UN Department of Peace Operations currently leads 11 missions. While normally rolled into the inaccurately ubiquitous term "peacekeeping" Peace Support Operations are a family of strategic approaches, of which peacekeeping is but one. The types of peace support operations that are undertaken in the modern strategic environment are far broader than the traditional peacekeeping most are familiar with. These include, but are not limited to:
Conflict Prevention — actions to monitor risk and prevent escalation of conflict: these efforts include preventive diplomacy, preventive deployment, and security-sector reform, all organized towards preventing the outbreak or exacerbation of conflict.
Peacemaking — diplomatic tools after hostilities begin: negotiations, conciliation, pressure and sanctions, sometimes supported by military measures. In rare circumstances this can take the form of military action to impose a peace.
Peacekeeping (Traditional) — enjoying the consent of belligerent parties, light forces are deployed to provide an inter-positional presence to monitor agreements and keep parties apart. As mentioned previously this is sometimes known as "Pearsonian" peacekeeping and what many Canadians' understanding automatically defaults to when they hear the term.
Peacekeeping (Complex) — situations where there is low or uneven consent from parties to the conflict, normally accompanied with a broader authorization to use force. Thhes missions often take place in failed or failing states alongside humanitarian crises with the aim to stabilize conditions so that humanitarian agencies and political processes can function.
Peace Building — long-term institutional work focused on the rule of law, reconciliation between belligerents, and the improvement of governance.
Despite the fact that many in Canada and around the world still assume that traditional peacekeeping is the norm, that is sadly not the case. In the modern strategic environment, in particular since the collapse of the Soviet Bloc, peace support operations are predominantly focused on protecting civilians, securing humanitarian corridors, and attempting to re-establish core state functions amid contested consent in failed or failing states. Indeed, while traditional peacekeeping was never totally safe and even the most benign environment carried with it a degree of risk, modern peace support operations are far more fraught with danger. In some circumstances, modern peace support forces operate in environments where there are multiple actors, both state and non-state, not all of whom are guaranteed to accept the presence of the peace support force.
Of late, however, we have witnessed an intensification in state vs. state warfare, a type of conflict whose time, many thought, had passed. But perhaps along with its resurgence will come a return to the prominence of the traditional peacekeeping model. If that is to be the case, there are a few fundamental principles that leaders undertaking such endeavours must follow to ensure their success: impartiality, consent, and the minimum use of force. Below I briefly describe each.
Impartiality
Impartiality is not a posture of passivity; it is disciplined adherence to the peace support mission's mandate and to first principles. In practice, it means peacekeepers judge words and deeds against the mission’s terms—not against the identity of the actor. When a party obstructs the mandate, peacekeepers respond because of what was done, not who did it. That even-handedness must be matched by deliberate transparency: clear explanations of intent, visible liaison with all sides, and an active information effort that shows how decisions flow from the mandate.
Perception, however, can diverge from reality. A force may act impartially and still be accused of bias by those who repeatedly transgress. That is the nature of principled enforcement. The remedy is not silence but steadiness—address accusations early, demonstrate the logic of actions, and keep lines of communication open. Impartiality is thus different from neutrality: peacekeepers do not stand aloof; they stand between belligerents, applying the mandate with judgment and resolve. This level of impartiality is nearly impossible to achieve with a peacekeeping force that contains elements from one of the former belligerent nations or coalitions.
Consent
Consent lives on many levels. There can be an peace agreement at the political level while, at the tactical edge, armed groups or local spoilers contest every inch of the intervening terrain. In such environments, consent is often provisional and must be cultivated. This demands a force credible enough to deter interference, coupled with a campaign of persuasion that makes the rules of the mission, and the incentives for cooperation, plain to all.
Consent also has to travel. Commitments secured in a negotiation room must be transmitted through belligerent chains of command to those elements interacting with peacekeeping patrols on the ground. Liaison teams, joint mechanisms, and incentive-based projects can turn parties into shareholders in the peace and expand the operational space for the mission. When consent falters, consequences follow: restrictions on movement, rising risk, and a drift from mission tasks to force protection. In such cases restoring consent becomes the priority, sometimes with inducements, sometimes with firm, lawful measures that re-establish credibility, always with an eye to justice, because a peace built on impunity does not hold.
Minimum Use of Force
Force in peace support operations must be restrained, lawful, purposeful, and used only to achieve defined tasks within the peace mission's mandate and the rules of engagement. Units must be capable of defending themselves, the mission, and those under their protection, yet every application of force should be precise, proportionate, and designed to defuse rather than inflame. Alternatives such as negotiation and the gradual escalation of force should be exhausted where possible; when force is lamentably necessary, it should be decisive enough to end the incident quickly and discourage repetition.
Because every use of force echoes beyond the immediate contact, commanders must manage the consequences as carefully as the contact itself by balancing security, legitimacy, and the work of civilian partners. In cases of clear mandate breaches or grave abuses, calibrated action can strengthen credibility and, paradoxically, widen consent by reassuring the population and treaty or agreement parties.
Conclusion
Peace support operations remain viable tools of national grand strategy: they can reduce risks to allies and partners, uphold international norms, and open space for diplomacy and development. But they are strategic tools, not talismans. They work when the political ground is prepared, when missions are resourced and rapid, and when impartiality and consent are present. Should the evolving modern strategic environment herald a return to traditional or "Pearsonian" peacekeeping, strict adherence to the fundamental principles mentioned above will be critical to their success.