Introduction

There are as many contrasts as there are comparisons in the forms of peacekeeping adopted to deal with the conflicts that arose in Lebanon, Somalia and Kosovo. In the case of Lebanon, UNIFIL emerged as a result of difficult negotiations that required a compromise by the parties to the conflict. Its survival in what were often difficult circumstances is testimony to the professionalism of those charged with implementing the mandate, rather than reflective of the merit of the mandate itself. By contrast, the UN operations in Somalia were bolder, more costly and, initially, less contentious. In Kosovo, the response of the international community arose from the aftermath of an eleven-week NATO air campaign against Yugoslav and Serbian security forces. Although a relatively small geographical area, this province of Serbia (formerly the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) presented a range of complex problems that exist to this day, especially in relation to the question of its future status. As in the case of Somalia, it is difficult to ascertain any national interest or motivation in intervening. The situation that arose in Kosovo during 1999 also demonstrated the powerlessness of the UN. Ensuring compliance with Security Council resolutions can be problematic at any time, but in this instance neither China nor Russia was willing to authorise the use of force against Serbia. This is the Achilles' heel in the UN system of collective security.