Description
How can we explain the varying ways in which UN peacekeepers respond to the presence of alleged war criminals in their mission areas? While public messaging by the UN has generally been clear on its commitment to principles of (criminal) accountability for atrocity crimes, its response in practice has often been more ambivalent. The realities of working in complex conflict zones with frequently shifting alliances, governments that are often as predatory as the armed groups they are fighting, and the challenges of peacemaking, all mean that it is difficult to be clear and consistent in avoiding association with human rights abusers and refusing to acquiesce in impunity. This paper seeks to explain the varying approaches that UN peacekeepers take towards alleged war criminals in their mission areas. It will test expectations derived from critical theorization on spoilers and labelling theories, which investigates the interaction between the categories being applied to armed groups accused of war crimes, and those doing the categorizing. As such, the paper looks at how the way that particular armed groups are labelled and categorized (‘recalcitrant’, ‘total spoiler’, ‘compliant armed group’, ‘criminal’, etc.) has an impact on the approach of UN peacekeepers towards alleged war criminals, but also how these categories are produced and may change over time. It will analyze this in the context of two case studies on the UN mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC): MONUC’s approach towards the Lord’s Resistance Army and MONUC/MONUSCO’s interactions with Bosco Ntaganda of the National Congress for the Defence of the People (CNDP).
