On December 17, 2010 a Tunisian fruit vendor lit himself on fire in order to protest the confiscation of his cart by the police. This demonstration was the first in a series of protests against the Tunisian government. As protests continue and spread throughout the country, violence increases, leaving dozens dead. After a month of unrest, the Tunisian president finally fled the country. The international community looked on, wondering whether other countries in the region would soon deal with the same turmoil. Sure enough, other countries followed suit, specifically Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Algeria, Jordan, and Syria. This region has endured months of instability, violence, and protests.
The instability and the reality of unnecessary and excessive violence in the region have prompted many to call for action from the United Nations. The need for peacekeeping forces in the Middle East has become extremely evident; however, there are many problems and obstacles that need to be discussed in order to make peacekeeping forces successful.
Due to the history of the presence of western nations in the Middle East, the response to these situations is particularly precarious. After the United States’ intervention in Iraq and continued presence in Afghanistan, there is a general distrust for the motives of western countries. This stems from the belief that any intervention is based not on the need for intervention, but rather a politically or economically beneficial outcome.  The controversy over Iraq War highlighted the idea that western nations use “humanitarian intervention” as a way to spread democracy, extract resources, or establish a foothold in the region for the benefit of westerners. The United Nations, while a global community, is often accused of helping western nations.

Another concern that has been raised is that with the negative perceptions of the western world, peacekeeping forces face additional risk of violence directed at them. While violence is always a possibility, there is more of a chance for peacekeeping forces to be attacked. There is question over how to ensure that peacekeeping forces can successfully maintain peace and perform their duties.

_
With such an unfavorable history, the question arises: how can the international community help civilians and maintain peace in the Middle East effectively? The goal of this committee is to discuss the role of peacekeeping forces in the region, attempting to establish ways to ensure that the goals of peacekeeping are met without causing more turmoil and violence in the region, and identify specific courses of action that should be taken in the Middle East.

_
Although discussion about the basic impediments and general ideas on peacekeeping will need to be addressed, debate on this topic should focus on the specific goals for peacekeeping in the Middle East, and how to successfully achieve them despite the inherent difficulties that will be faced. In preparation for debate, research and consider your country’s views on the use of peacekeeping, policies on intervention, and in keeping with their policies and history, envision specific actions that should be taken in the region.

In 1994, the small country of Rwanda was completely devastated by ethnic conflict that eventually led to the brutal killing of 800,000 people. At the time, peacekeeping forces were present in Rwanda, but after the deaths of 10 Belgian soldiers, a majority of the 2,500 peacekeepers were withdrawn. The international community watched as genocidal violence escalated, but the United Nations did nothing to stop the heinous acts that were taking place. In 2000, the United Nations Security Council accepted responsibility for their inaction. They found that the massacres were not stopped due to a lack of political will of the governments.

_
The case of Rwanda brings to light many problems with humanitarian intervention. Countries have often made decisions on interventions based on political or economic motives, leading to unnecessary interventions, or inaction. State sovereignty has also made decisions on intervention unclear. Out of the need for clearer and more objective reasons for intervention, humanitarian intervention doctrine has emerged, namely, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine. In a monumental moment, the United Nations invoked the R2P, allowing member nations to take necessary measures to protect Libyan civilians.

While the use of the R2P is aimed at helping prevent cases such as Rwanda, there are some concerns that need to be addressed. Can all cases in which humanitarian intervention might be necessary be judged on the same standards? If so, should there be a general formula for the type of intervention and the use of peacekeeping forces? Are nations allowed to invoke doctrine such as the R2P independently of the United Nations in order to justify self-interested interventions into other countries? Should countries who do decide to intervene without the justification of the United Nations, but use the R2P face consequences? If a humanitarian intervention is deemed necessary by the United Nations, are peacekeeping forces the only forces that should be used, or can member nations send in their own forces into the country?

_
These are all issues that this committee needs to address, seeing as this is the foundation for all future peacekeeping operations. The decisions made should reflect the lessons learned in cases such as Rwanda and the international community’s sincere desire to protect civilians. The committee’s role is to discuss the use of the Responsibility to Protect, and attempt to establish guidelines and the framework for its use. The debate on this topic should focus on answering the questions posed, and analyzing the R2P’s content to see if it adequately delineates when interventions are necessary and appropriate. In order to prepare, research your country’s history and policies in relation to interventions. Analyze the specific details of the R2P, and following your country’s stance, consider possible answers to these questions.