OPINION: Should China, Brazil, UN Be Part of Post-War Peacekeeping Force in Ukraine?

As the likelihood of an end to the war in Ukraine that followed Russia’s 2014 partial and 2022 full-scale invasions seems nearer than it has been in the past 11 years, thoughts have turned to how to “police” and monitor any peace plan. The obvious solution which Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky and many other Western leaders have called for is to establish a military “peacekeeping” force.

Several European countries – led by France, the UK, the Baltic countries – and others have expressed a readiness to participate. The majority of them are also NATO members that Russia considers to already be participants in the war. The US seems ambivalent, with some members of the new administration saying “never” while others say “maybe.”

According to a report in the Economist this was discussed at the Ukraine “Ramstein” contact group in January, after which US Vice President JD Vance, speaking at the Munich Security Conference, indicated that the US did not favor a solely European contingent.

The report suggests that several unnamed US officials have floated the idea that the inclusion of non-European countries, such as China and Brazil, would make the peacekeepers more balanced and palatable for Moscow. It would also avoid the danger that a European deployment could potentially force its personnel into situations where they might actively confront Moscow’s forces.

Other Topics of Interest

Europe’s Costa, Von der Leyen to Visit Kyiv on Invasion Anniversary

European Council President Antonio Costa said the two would visit Kyiv to meet Ukraine’s “democratically elected president,” Volodymyr Zelensky.

The $64,000 dollar question then is: Which nations will provide the “boots on the ground” and under what “flag” will the force operate?

A UN peacekeeping force?

Many would argue that this is exactly the sort of task the United Nations was set up to do. They will point out that there have been almost 80 peacekeeping missions since the first one in 1948, the UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) – in of all places – Israel. In the minds of many, however, the success of these missions has been, to say the least, mixed.

In her 2012 book published by Cambridge University Press, “UN Peacekeeping in Civil Wars,” Lise Morjé Howard argues that there has to be more to peacekeeping than just military forces. She argues they must be multidimensional, and hence complex, involving political, military, police, refugee, humanitarian, electoral, and often human rights components.

Howard says that despite the internal problems of the UN there has yet to be a “better international mechanism” to bring order after conflict.

Others would disagree and would point to the plethora of operational failures of UN missions as summarized in the Trends Research and Advisory July 2024 paper “Assessing Past UN Peacekeeping,” which draws attention to flawed deployments to the Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, former Yugoslavia (particularly Bosnia), Darfur, Liberia, South Sudan, Rwanda, Haiti, Somalia and Angola.

In an article in the Journal of International Peacekeeping, the author Jaïr van der Lijn examines the conduct of a number of UN peacekeeping operations focusing on the UN mission to Sudan (UNMIS) and lists nine factors that, if carried out correctly, will impact on the likelihood of success. It argues that the primary causes for failure are the lack of training for peacekeepers, outdated equipment, personal malfeasance, and the rules of engagement.

These operational catastrophes have been compounded by the accusations of human rights violations, particularly involving sexual abuse, which is comprehensively addressed in many publications including the Netherlands based Security and Human Rights Monitor.

Howard may be right, for all its faults the UN might be the only vehicle for putting together a peacekeeping force. Several studies, however, say the overall cause for success or failure rests on the level of buy-in or resistance from the UN Security Council. The main obstacle likely for success in Ukraine is Russia’s position on the council and its existing, ongoing power of veto.

What about China and Brazil?

In addition to the US suggestion that these two countries could become involved, Beijing has previously expressed a willingness to participate.

The South China Morning Post citing Zhou Bo, a former Chinese colonel and senior fellow at the Center for International Security and Strategy at Tsinghua University, speaking on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference, said China would consider sending troops if other non-European nations such as India contributed.

He said Beijing “has enough troops and military power” to participate, adding: “If peacekeeping operations are carried out only by European countries, Russia may see this as another form of NATO involvement.”

China has consistently put itself forward as a supporter of UN peacekeeping efforts. In 2015, the 70th anniversary of the founding of the UN, China was the second largest contributor to peacekeeping budgets, provided additional funding financing for the UN Peace and Development Fund and for African peacekeeping capacity training and pledged sufficient troops to the UN’s “standby peacekeeping force.”

Since 1990, China has provided more than 30,000 peacekeepers to more than 20 peacekeeping missions. While Ukraine is likely to be suspicious of Chinese involvement because of its perceived pro-Moscow stance it would undoubtedly counterbalance a “Western bias” in Moscow’s eyes.

Brazil has participated to around 50 UN-mandated peacekeeping operations since 1956, contributing more than 33,000 military, police and civilian personnel.

In 2004, the nation led the UN peacekeeping mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH), where it based its peacekeeping model on solidarity, demand-driven cooperation, non-conditionality, and non-interference. The sort of buzz words UN officials like even though the mission was overall considered to be “inconclusive.”

Several countries and the UN bureaucracy have praised Brazil’s approach to peacekeeping, although many accuse Brazil of only contributing to missions that fit its strategic agenda – a charge that many if not most of those that contribute are guilty.

Just like China, Brazil’s relationship with Russia, particularly through its participation in the BRICS organization, could be seen as a problem for Ukraine.

Conclusion

The US concerns of the acceptability of a totally European peacekeeping force are understandable, not just from Russia’s perspective but also for many particularly in the global south. The pill could, however, be sweetened if countries such as India, or African, Middle Eastern and Far Eastern nations could take part – even if that could complicate the “command and control” process.

Undoubtedly, however, the provision of a multinational peacekeeping force would be seen to protect both Ukraine and Russia’s interests as a prerequisite for any peace plan.

The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.