0 about the author

INTRODUCTION 
The term peacekeeping is totally missing in the UN Charter, and is widely credited to Lester 
Pearson, a Canadian Diplomat, who coined the term in the 1950's-following Egypt's "suez crisis", 
although the international management of political violence has a far longer history. And it's the 
most sustained effort by international bodies to reduce and manage armed conflict (Bellamy & 
Williams 20 10). 
According to the Former UN Secretary General - Dag Hammarskjold- 'Peacekeeping is not 
a soldier's job, but only a soldier can do it’. Closely related to the above statement are the words 
of a former Canadian General, Clayton Beattie (1983 :209) '...in peacekeeping there is no enemy: 
the objective is to avoid hostilities, to improve communications between the parties, and to 
advance the process of reconciliation This statement by Clayton Beattie is tenable in theory 
(traditional peacekeeping) but remains doubtful in practice, given the experiences of some 
countries and their peacekeepers, and the emerging trends in intra-state conflicts. Therefore, it's 
only true to add that peacekeepers can only create or ensure stability and not peace (Anon); 
Somalia, Sierra Leone and Central African Republic are all case in point. Having the above 
separate points in mind, peacekeeping's aim, among other things, we have agreed, is geared 
towards transferring responsibility to the host Country's government, and this is a fact that must 
never be undermined, no matter how long it takes. 
Furthermore, peacekeeping is what one may call the official code of conduct adopted by 
states to make life worth living. Moreover, to gain a better understanding of peacekeeping, we 
must remain sensitive to how it fits in with the ebb and flow of global political currents (Op.cit 
2010:4).
Following this is the fact that, there's not a complete consensus about the role that 
peacekeeping operations should play in global politics, though there are more points of agreement 
today than at any time previously (Ibid). This point tends to give a clear picture regarding the 
subject of national interest which is tied to every state's foreign policy. More so, the point on not 
having a total consensus on the role of peacekeeping vis-a-vis global politics is expressed in the 

---

86 
Westphalian and Post Westphalian concept or perspective on peacekeeping operations. 
The Westphalian proponents posited that the primary function of peacekeeping operations 
is to assist the peaceful settlement of disputes or conflict between states (Ibid). Attention in this 
case is directed at the state with little or no regard for its citizens. 
Post Westphalian proponents on the other hand, opined that in as much as it's good for 
states to have good relations borne out of understanding and good governance, it's also good to 
be interested in the internal or domestic activities of states vis-a-vis peace and security of lives 
and properties among other things. They also agree that states have the Responsibility to Protect 
(R2P) their citizens, but submitted that, where states fail (like in Rwanda et al) in this 
responsibility, the international organization assume that responsibility to protect-'in a timely and 
decisive manner' -vulnerable population, especially now that the R2P principle have been 
codified into the UN and AU arrangements in 2005 and 2006 respectively. This is where Chapter 
VII of the UN Charter is invoked (Evans 2008; Bellamy 2009 in ibid). In summary; implanting 
democratic tenets into states is the deepest concern of the post Westphalian proponents.