Peace Enforcement in the Face of International Military Intervention

The assurance of political dominance is guaranteed through successful peace operations, emphasizing the importance of these operations in achieving political conflict resolution. Lasting peace can only be achieved or maintained through political solutions, rather than military and technological involvement. The failures of previous military interventions in Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Darfur, Libya, and Syria, along with the current chaotic state of these countries, raise doubts about the ability of international military interventions to truly establish peace. This paper argues that peacekeepers have often focused only on surface-level protection of civilians, without addressing the underlying causes of violence against them. This approach has contributed to political and social instability in the most affected countries. By examining the 2003 Darfur crisis and the people of Sudan’s Nuba mountains, the paper suggests recalibrating local resilience and empowerment strategies as crucial steps in the right direction for effectively enforcing peace amidst international military intervention. The argument is grounded in (Galtung, Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization, Sage, London, pp. 71–72, 1996) Conflict Triangle, which states that peacekeeping can address behaviour while peace-building can address the underlying conditions that drive conflicts. Thus, the paper justifies its emphasis on civilian protection within the framework of building local resilience and empowerment, which are powerful elements arising from genuine political solutions that can enforce peace in the face of international military intervention. When the civilian population is empowered, they are more likely to participate in governance decisions that affect them, which can help reduce crises or provide necessary resources.