The Background Of The East Timor Conflict

Against a backdrop of an ever increasing number of internal conflicts and the crash of conventional means of conflict resolution to attain a resilient peace in divided societies, this paper presents a two-track approach to peacekeeping and conflict resolution. One track is represented by peacemaking, defined as endeavors at finding a resolution to the issues in conflict at the political leadership level. The other track, peacebuilding, refers to contact proposals at the grassroots level targeting at the enhancement of intergroup relations. After a conversation of role of grassroots peacebuilding in a peace process some groundwork findings on the bond between peacemaking and peacebuilding in two divided societies, Palestine and Israel, will be discussed.

Humanitarian crises and international politics goes hand in hand. One can cause the other, while the only way to fix the other is to rely on politics. This paper will highlight the cause of genocide, violent massacres and crisis, how to solve them, and key roles politicians and nations must take up wholeheartedly in order to make a difference. Personal and political reconciliation must occur in the parties involved ever want to have a mutual co existence.

• Principal Task Two: contribute to stability and security in the South Pacific and Timor-Leste;

Sierra Leone had been considered a fragile state even before its civil war from 1991-2002, this is because it had “weak capacity and will to provide security and deliver services to its population” (Pickering, 2009, p20). The decade during the civil war was overwhelmed by huge human rights abuses, lack of coherent governments, weak social security structures and masses of violence (Evoe, 2008, p2).. A number of peace efforts were generated by international institutions, none of which were extensively effective throughout all of Sierra Leone. Despite these difficulties, the intervention in Sierra Leone is considered a noteworthy success for the United Nations peacebuilding mission. The main objective of peacebuilding missions is to ‘rebuild’ failing and weak states (Cubitt, 2013, p91) and to “prevent violence from recurring in countries that are just emerging from civil conflict” (Paris, 2002, p637). The UN mission in Sierra Leone is widely regarded as an example of successful peacebuilding in a war torn country. The mission facilitated a transition from, a failing state to a moderately peaceful state. This mission is held as an example of successful intervention, and is often used as a means to justify the benefits of UN peacebuilding and peacekeeping missions.

I will shed the light on the Security Council which is the keystone of the United Nations system of collective security, and its role in maintaining international peace and security by settling disputes pacifically under chapter VI of the UN Charter and by taking action regarding threats, breaches, and acts of aggression under chapter VII. I will then discuss the several options that Nation states had resorted to in the past to intervene in order to protect civilians. And I will finally highlight the notion of the responsibility to protect which emerged in 2001 and its implication on populations under

Bertram looks at the successes and failures of new UN peacekeeping, such as the successes in El Salvador and Cambodia and the failures in Somalia and Angola, and argues that the UN needs to do a better job at determining where peace can be built. She also argues that the UN must stop blurring the lines between traditional peacekeeping doctrine and new peacekeeping practices in order to effectively accomplish their goals. Bertram notes in her essay how these things are crucial in assuring the success of UN peace building. She also emphasizes how crucial success is by noting how much small failures can deter member states from acting as peace builders in UN

Difficulties in stopping this world order conflict in Sudan arose from factors such as the use of the veto power in the UN Security Council to prevent the UN imposing sanctions and stopping the conflict. This was seen in China’s use of the veto power in regards to the conflict in Sudan, resulting in a prolonging of the conflict, “China has used its veto at the UN Security Council to block moves to impose sanctions on Sudan unless it stops the fighting in Darfur” (BBC, 2007). Thus, the conflict in Darfur, Sudan is an example of a world order conflict associated with access to resources as well as a conflict which has difficulties stopping due to factors such as use of the veto

In presenting the rationale behind the publication of the third edition to their book, Ramsbotham, Woodhouse and Miall, explain how the field of conflict resolution has emerged as a specialization in the post-Cold War era. The authors “argue that it is an integral part of work for development, social justice, and social transformation”. As the fundamental challenges linked with state fragility surface, the development of conflict resolution and the related perspectives gain relevance, and will increasingly become more relevant when responding to changing societies; particularly where social bounds are weak due to a lack of consensus between values and traditions. This evolution in conflict analysis is a reflection of the evolution of classical

As breaking news is more easily communicated across the globe, the U.N. and other states led forces are more inclined to intervene more then ever before but sometimes they are faced with the problem of protecting a states sovereignty. There is a growing skepticism that is facing humanitarian intervention when a sovereign state fails to protect it’s own population. The question arises when humanitarian intervention supersedes the sovereignty of a state. Does the state remain sovereign or does it lose authority when an outside party intervenes? Respecting a states sovereignty is a high priority between the United Nations and other state led forces, but when a sovereign state fails the responsibility protect it’s own citizens there is an unclear line that confuses the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention and it’s principles of military action. The United Nation’s humanitarian intervention, and the principles of its military action, has shown time after time of its failures and successes in combating or escalating wide spread violence. In this study I will weigh the pros and cons of several conflicts where humanitarian intervention was deployed and decide if humanitarian intervention was a successful or unsuccessful procedure. By focusing on what is causing these complications in enforcing humanitarian intervention within failed states will prove if this practice is just or not. But before I discuss these issues of

East Timor is one of the world’s beautiful and vast tropical wildernesses. A lot of the country’s economic activity lies on the premises of the country’s landscape. The economic outlook of the country is centered on its history and potential for development. There are several emerging industries and future sources of income present in East Timor that are based on the country’s environmental strengths.

Herein lies the central dilemma of deploying armed force in humanitarian interventions for peace. I have talked about the good that can be brought about by peacekeeping forces, even suggesting that the United Nations Peacekeeping force in Rwanda should have intervened more proactively to prevent the genocide in 1994.

Then again, what initially was the United Nations plan for East Timor? East Timorese begged to the United Nations to send help, and in 1999 they sent help for the elections to see if whether or not East Timor would be independent or still be under control of Indonesia. And as expected, They voted for independence. The Pro-Indonesian militias and allies in the military were not happy and went on a rampage killing hundreds of people. The UN had to leave, being that they were unarmed. September 12th, 1999 Indonesia made a request to the UN to send troops to secure to restore peace. (11,000 troops from eighteen different countries). The Indonesian Armed Forces eventually left, completely.

Starting in the 1960s, East Timor was trying to gain independence and in 1974 things seemed likely when Portugal began to relinquish control of its colonies. However, Indonesia decided to take advantage of the lack of control and on the 7th of December 1975, East Timor was invaded by the armed forces of the Republic of Indonesia. Soon after, East Timor was declared Indonesia’s twenty-seventh province on 17th of July 1976. This led to many reports of widespread atrocities, with the international community only prepared to engage in token gestures. Although the UN recognized East Timor’s right to self determination, there were not key powers within the UN that would actively fight against Indonesia, mostly for political

“Give War a Chance” is an article written by the American economist, historian and military strategist Edward Nicolae Luttwak in 1999, in the American magazine Foreign Affairs. It make an easily understandable “buzz”, since its main assumption is that most kind of peacekeeping or humanitarian operations are, in an objective point of view, a bad thing for the peace, and that it tends, paradoxically, to slower its establishment. We will analyze here the main hypothesis that Luttwak is developing among the article, the first one being the destruction of the legitimacy usually accorded to peacekeeping operations, led by the UN or by other military organizations, and the second one being the obstacle to a durable peace establishment, created

The United Nations, with its rigid moral and political limitations against force, has become a benchmark of peace and a social achievement of modern times. From war torn Europe, the United Nations developed from five major powers with an initial goal to prevent the spread of warfare through peaceful means and to establish and maintain fundamental human rights. Through the past fifty years, this organization has broadened its horizons with auxiliary organizations from peace keeping missions to humanitarian aid, to economic development. However, in a modern example of ethnic cleansing, the UN faces new a new role as a bystander as its power is bypassed by NATO forces. The UN, however, promises to be an