What If Peacekeeping Operations Never Existed?

The Actual History

The concept of peacekeeping emerged in the aftermath of World War II as the international community sought mechanisms to prevent future conflicts and manage ongoing ones. While the United Nations Charter did not explicitly outline peacekeeping as a function, it evolved organically in response to global crises where the organization needed to intervene without resorting to enforcement actions under Chapter VII of the Charter.

The first official UN peacekeeping mission, the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO), was established in 1948 to monitor the ceasefire between the newly created state of Israel and its Arab neighbors. However, it was the 1956 United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF I), deployed during the Suez Crisis, that truly established the template for modern peacekeeping operations. UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld and Canadian diplomat Lester B. Pearson were instrumental in developing the concept and principles of peacekeeping during this crisis, with Pearson later receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts.

Traditional peacekeeping was built on three core principles: consent of the parties, impartiality, and non-use of force except in self-defense. Peacekeepers—often called "Blue Helmets" due to their distinctive headgear—were typically lightly armed military personnel from neutral countries who deployed to buffer zones between former combatants to monitor ceasefires and facilitate diplomatic solutions.

During the Cold War (1947-1991), UN peacekeeping operations were limited by superpower rivalries, with the Security Council frequently deadlocked by vetoes. The UN deployed only 13 peacekeeping operations between 1948 and 1988, primarily focusing on interstate conflicts and ceasefire monitoring. Notable missions included UNFICYP in Cyprus (1964-present), UNDOF in the Golan Heights (1974-present), and UNIFIL in Lebanon (1978-present).

The end of the Cold War marked a dramatic transformation in peacekeeping. Between 1989 and 1994, the UN launched 20 new operations, nearly doubling the total number of missions deployed in its entire previous history. The scope of peacekeeping expanded dramatically to include complex tasks such as supervising elections, disarming combatants, protecting civilians, and assisting in state-building efforts in countries like Cambodia, El Salvador, Mozambique, and Namibia.

The 1990s also saw tragic failures in UN peacekeeping, most notably in Somalia (1993), Rwanda (1994), and Bosnia (1995), where peacekeepers were unable to prevent mass atrocities due to restricted mandates, inadequate resources, or lack of political will. These failures prompted a period of soul-searching and reform within the UN system.

Since 2000, guided by the Brahimi Report and subsequent reform efforts, UN peacekeeping has evolved toward more robust mandates and multidimensional operations. Contemporary missions often combine military, police, and civilian components working on security, governance, human rights, and development issues simultaneously. Recent operations in Mali, Central African Republic, and South Sudan have been authorized to use "all necessary means" to protect civilians, representing a significant departure from traditional peacekeeping principles.

As of 2025, UN peacekeeping remains one of the most visible instruments of collective security, with approximately 75,000 personnel serving in a dozen operations across Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and Europe. Beyond the UN, regional organizations such as the African Union, European Union, and NATO have developed their own peacekeeping capabilities, creating a complex ecosystem of international conflict management tools. While not without flaws and limitations, peacekeeping has become an established, if imperfect, mechanism for managing conflicts and protecting civilians in war-torn regions.

The Point of Divergence

What if peacekeeping operations never existed? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where the United Nations, in its formative years, never developed peacekeeping as a tool for international conflict management and resolution.

The most plausible point of divergence occurs during the 1956 Suez Crisis. In our timeline, this crisis represented the crucible in which modern peacekeeping was forged. When Britain, France, and Israel invaded Egypt following Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser's nationalization of the Suez Canal, the UN General Assembly stepped in where the Security Council was deadlocked. Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld and Canadian Foreign Minister Lester B. Pearson proposed the novel concept of an international force to supervise the withdrawal of invading forces and serve as a buffer.

In our alternate timeline, several plausible divergences could have prevented the birth of peacekeeping:

One possibility is that Dag Hammarskjöld, instead of pursuing his creative interpretation of the UN Charter that enabled peacekeeping, might have taken a more conservative approach to the Secretary-General's role. Perhaps facing stronger opposition from France and Britain in the General Assembly, Hammarskjöld might have concluded that direct UN intervention without Security Council approval would undermine the organization's legitimacy.

Alternatively, Lester Pearson might never have proposed the creation of UNEF. If Canada had aligned more firmly with its traditional allies (Britain and France) during the crisis, Pearson might have refrained from pursuing an independent diplomatic initiative that effectively criticized their actions.

A third possibility involves the United States. President Eisenhower strongly opposed the invasion and applied economic pressure on Britain to withdraw. If Eisenhower had been more ambivalent or supportive of the Anglo-French-Israeli action, the political conditions for creating a neutral peacekeeping force might never have materialized.

Without the precedent of UNEF I establishing the conceptual and operational framework for peacekeeping, subsequent international crises would have unfolded differently. When conflicts arose that historically saw peacekeeping interventions, the international community would have had to rely on traditional diplomatic measures, great power interventions, or simply allowing conflicts to run their course without international oversight of ceasefires or buffer zones.

This absence of peacekeeping as a conflict management tool would have profoundly shaped international relations throughout the Cold War and beyond, creating a world where international responses to conflicts followed a markedly different trajectory than the one we know.

Immediate Aftermath

The Suez Crisis Aftermath

Without peacekeeping as an option during the 1956 Suez Crisis, the immediate resolution would have taken a different path. In this alternate timeline, several scenarios might have unfolded:

Extended Occupation: Without UNEF to supervise withdrawal and serve as a buffer, British and French forces might have maintained a military presence in the Canal Zone for months or even years. This occupation would have inflamed anti-Western sentiment throughout the Arab world and potentially driven Egypt even more firmly into the Soviet sphere.
Direct Superpower Confrontation: The Soviet Union, which had threatened to intervene militarily on Egypt's behalf, might have taken more direct action, potentially deploying "volunteers" similar to those sent to conflicts like the Spanish Civil War. This would have risked a dangerous escalation between nuclear powers.
Alternative Diplomatic Framework: The crisis might have been resolved through traditional great power diplomacy, perhaps with the creation of an international commission rather than a military force to oversee the Canal's operation. However, without neutral peacekeepers to monitor compliance, any agreement would have rested on far shakier foundations.

The absence of peacekeeping as a precedent during the Suez Crisis would have immediate ripple effects on other ongoing or emerging conflicts.

The Congo Crisis (1960-1965)

In our timeline, the UN Operation in the Congo (ONUC) was one of the earliest and largest peacekeeping missions, deployed to help stabilize the newly independent country amid political chaos, secession attempts, and Cold War interference.

Without the peacekeeping template:

Unrestrained Cold War Battlefield: The Congo would likely have become an even more direct proxy battleground between Soviet and Western interests. Rather than UN peacekeepers, we might have seen direct military interventions by the superpowers or their proxies.
Expanded Belgian Military Role: Belgium, the former colonial power, might have maintained a much larger military presence to protect its substantial economic interests, particularly in mineral-rich Katanga province.
Accelerated Balkanization: Without international peacekeepers working to maintain Congo's territorial integrity, the country might have permanently fragmented along regional lines, creating a patchwork of small, weak states susceptible to ongoing foreign manipulation.

The Cyprus Conflict (1963-1964)

The intercommunal violence between Greek and Turkish Cypriots that erupted in late 1963 led to the deployment of UNFICYP in 1964, a peacekeeping mission that continues to this day.

In our alternate timeline:

Direct NATO Intervention: Without a UN peacekeeping option, NATO might have been forced to intervene more directly to prevent conflict between two member states (Greece and Turkey).
Earlier Turkish Military Action: Turkey threatened to intervene militarily in 1964 to protect Turkish Cypriots. Without UN peacekeepers creating a buffer zone, Turkey might have launched a full-scale military operation a decade earlier than its actual 1974 invasion.
Cold War Flashpoint: Cyprus's strategic location in the Eastern Mediterranean made it crucial for NATO operations. Soviet involvement in a Cyprus conflict could have created a dangerous new Cold War flashpoint.

Institutional Development of the United Nations

The absence of peacekeeping would have fundamentally altered the UN's development as an institution:

Diminished Operational Role: Without peacekeeping missions requiring substantial field presence, the UN would have developed primarily as a forum for diplomacy rather than as an operational organization with significant field activities.
Smaller Secretariat: The administrative apparatus to support peacekeeping operations—including the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (established 1992 but with predecessor units)—would never have developed, resulting in a much smaller UN bureaucracy.
Budget and Assessment Differences: Without peacekeeping assessments constituting a major portion of member states' financial obligations, the UN's funding structure would have evolved differently, potentially with greater emphasis on voluntary contributions rather than assessed ones.

Military Doctrine and Force Structures

Nations that became significant peacekeeping contributors would have developed different military doctrines and capabilities:

Canadian Military Development: Canada, which strongly identified with peacekeeping as part of its international persona, would have developed its military forces with different priorities, likely focusing more on NATO commitments or continental defense.
Nordic Defense Policies: Countries like Sweden, Finland, and Norway, which built international reputations as peacekeeping contributors, might have maintained more traditionally defensive military postures focused exclusively on territorial security.
Indian Military Projection: India, historically one of the largest troop contributors to UN peacekeeping, might have had fewer opportunities to project influence globally through military deployments under an international banner.

The absence of peacekeeping in the 1950s and 1960s would have created a fundamentally different approach to managing international conflicts, with greater reliance on great power politics, regional organizations, and bilateral arrangements—with significantly different outcomes for conflicts that, in our timeline, saw UN peacekeeping interventions.

Long-term Impact

Evolution of International Conflict Management

Without peacekeeping operations as an established conflict management tool, the international community would have developed alternative mechanisms for addressing conflicts:

Great Power Management Systems

Formalized "Spheres of Influence": By the 1970s and 1980s, we might have seen the emergence of more explicitly acknowledged spheres of influence, where the superpowers took direct responsibility for "peacekeeping" within their respective domains. The Soviet crackdowns in Hungary (1956) and Czechoslovakia (1968) might have become models rather than exceptions.
Regional Hegemon Responsibility: Regional powers like Brazil in South America, Nigeria in West Africa, and India in South Asia would likely have taken more direct military intervention roles in neighboring countries experiencing instability.
Private Military Contractors: By the 1990s and 2000s, in the absence of neutral UN forces, we might have seen the earlier rise and greater legitimization of private military companies filling security voids in conflict zones, particularly in resource-rich areas where commercial interests could fund such operations.

Regional Organizations Development

Enhanced OAU/AU Military Capacity: The Organization of African Unity (later African Union) would have faced immense pressure to develop robust military intervention capabilities decades earlier than it did in our timeline, potentially leading to a standing African military force by the 1980s.
NATO's Expanded Role: Without UN peacekeeping as an option, NATO might have evolved beyond a purely defensive alliance much earlier, developing expeditionary capabilities in the 1970s rather than the 1990s to address security concerns on Europe's periphery.
ASEAN Security Mechanisms: The Association of Southeast Asian Nations might have developed formalized military intervention protocols for regional conflicts rather than its traditional non-interference stance.

Decolonization and Post-Colonial Conflicts

The absence of UN peacekeeping would have profoundly affected the decolonization process and post-colonial state development:

Messier Transitions to Independence: Without UN operations overseeing transitions in places like Namibia (UNTAG) and East Timor (UNTAET), decolonization processes would have been more chaotic and potentially more violent.
Higher Incidence of Failed States: Post-colonial states experiencing civil conflict would have lacked the stabilizing presence of neutral peacekeepers. Without operations like ONUMOZ in Mozambique or UNAVEM in Angola, many more countries might have descended into prolonged state failure.
Extended Neo-Colonial Military Presences: Former colonial powers would have maintained direct military presences in their former colonies for much longer under security agreements or unilateral interventions. French military bases in Africa would be more numerous and larger, while British security commitments to former colonies would be more extensive.

Development of International Law and Human Rights

The legal and normative evolution of international relations would have followed a different trajectory:

Slower Development of International Humanitarian Law: The practical experiences of peacekeeping operations significantly influenced the development of legal frameworks governing armed conflict. Without these experiences, the evolution of concepts like "responsibility to protect" (R2P) and legal protections for civilians in conflict zones would have progressed more slowly.
Weaker International Criminal Justice System: UN peacekeeping missions often gathered evidence and created conditions for accountability. Without this foundation, the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia might never have been established, significantly delaying the development of international criminal law.
Different Human Rights Monitoring Mechanisms: In the absence of peacekeeping operations with human rights monitoring components, regional human rights mechanisms might have developed more robust field presences, or international NGOs like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International might have become even more prominent.

Specific Regional Outcomes

The Middle East

Israeli-Arab Relations: Without UNEF I in Sinai, UNDOF in the Golan, or UNIFIL in Lebanon creating buffer zones, the frequency and intensity of Arab-Israeli conflicts might have been higher, potentially preventing or significantly altering the peace processes that emerged in the 1970s and beyond.
Permanent Fragmentation of Lebanon: Without UNIFIL establishing a degree of stability in southern Lebanon, the country might have been formally partitioned along sectarian lines following its 1975-1990 civil war.

The Balkans

Extended Yugoslav Wars: Without UNPROFOR and subsequent missions, the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s might have continued much longer, potentially resulting in complete ethnic separation and the creation of ethnically homogeneous mini-states throughout the region.
Greater Russian Influence: In the absence of UN operations in the Balkans, Russia might have intervened more directly to support Serbian interests, creating a more substantial Russian sphere of influence in Southeastern Europe.

Africa

Different Genocide Response: The failure of UNAMIR to prevent the Rwandan genocide in 1994 led to significant soul-searching and reform in international conflict response. Without this catalyzing event, the development of genocide prevention mechanisms might have taken a different path.
Resource-Based Intervention Patterns: Without ostensibly neutral UN forces available, interventions in African conflicts might have followed resource value more explicitly, with foreign powers intervening primarily where mineral or oil wealth justified the cost.

Contemporary International Relations (2000-2025)

By the present day in our alternate timeline, international conflict management would look fundamentally different:

Stronger Regional Security Organizations: Without UN peacekeeping setting global standards and practices, regional organizations would have developed more distinctive and potentially more robust intervention capabilities tailored to regional contexts.
More Explicit "Responsibility" Doctrines: Rather than the somewhat ambiguous "Responsibility to Protect" that emerged in our timeline, we might see more explicit doctrines justifying intervention, with less concern for international consensus and more emphasis on unilateral or regional action.
Technological Alternatives to Boots on Ground: Without the precedent of peacekeepers physically separating combatants, greater emphasis might have been placed on technological solutions like drone surveillance zones, automated ceasefire monitoring systems, and remote sensing technologies to manage conflict zones.
Private Sector Peace Operations: By 2025, we might see internationally certified private security companies authorized by the UN or regional bodies to conduct paid peacekeeping operations, creating a market-based approach to international security maintenance.

The cumulative effect of these changes would be a world where conflicts were more frequently managed through direct great power intervention, regional organization action, or simply left to burn themselves out. The norms of state sovereignty would remain stronger, with less acceptance of international oversight in internal conflicts. The global security architecture would be more fragmented, with regional systems predominating over universal mechanisms, and the concept of truly neutral third-party intervention would be considered more ideal than practical reality.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Jean-Marie Guéhenno, former undersecretary-general at the United Nations and professor of international and public affairs, offers this perspective: "The absence of peacekeeping would have created a stark binary choice in conflict zones: either outright military intervention by great powers or complete international disengagement. This false dichotomy would have removed the crucial middle ground that peacekeeping operations, despite their limitations, have provided. The result would likely be a more militarized approach to conflict management globally, with regional hegemons asserting control through direct force rather than through the legitimizing framework of international mandates. The principles of consent and minimum force that underpin peacekeeping would never have entered the lexicon of international relations, making the humanitarian costs of conflict management substantially higher."

Professor Séverine Autesserre, author and researcher on peacekeeping and conflict resolution, suggests: "Without peacekeeping operations, local conflict resolution mechanisms might have received greater attention and support much earlier. In our timeline, the presence of international peacekeepers has sometimes inadvertently undermined local peace initiatives by imposing standardized, top-down solutions. In a world without Blue Helmets, we might have seen earlier development of hybrid approaches that better integrate community-based conflict management with international support. However, we would have lost the protective presence that, despite its many failures, has undoubtedly saved countless lives in places from Srebrenica to South Sudan. The overall balance would likely have been negative, with more unrestrained violence in fragile states, but potentially more authentic and sustainable local peace processes where they managed to take root."

Ambassador James Jonah, former UN under-secretary-general for political affairs and veteran of numerous peacekeeping operations, provides this analysis: "African development would have followed a dramatically different trajectory without UN peacekeeping. Post-colonial transitions that were stabilized by UN presences in countries like Namibia and Mozambique might instead have descended into chronic instability similar to what we saw in Somalia or Liberia. Former colonial powers would have maintained more direct military influence across the continent, likely supporting authoritarian regimes that protected external economic interests rather than promoting democratic governance. While UN peacekeeping has often been criticized for perpetuating 'negative peace'—the mere absence of fighting without addressing root causes—this alternate scenario suggests that even negative peace provided crucial space for development that would have been impossible amid active conflict. The economic and humanitarian costs of this alternate timeline would have been staggering, particularly for Africa's civilian populations."