The Drawdown in Bakhar: R2P, Peacekeeping and a Spoiler
Bakhar has 7 million people and an 11-year civil war that produced a 2019 ceasefire. The UN mission, MINUBA, has 9,800 troops and 1,200 police, and costs $1.1 billion a year. Its mandate covers protection of civilians, support to the transitional government, and monitoring an arms embargo; the Security Council resolution expires in 60 days. The elected government, whose 2022 victory is contested, demands withdrawal by 2025 and calls the mission neo-colonial. It has signed a separate security deal with neighbouring Nara, which will guard mining areas. The UN human rights office recorded 1,400 civilian killings in 2023, 60% by the northern armed group FRA, and 280,000 newly displaced people; 1.2 million need aid. Troop-contributing countries say they will withdraw if the mandate is strengthened. Twelve sexual exploitation and abuse cases involving peacekeepers and six involving Nara forces have been reported. FRA refuses talks while UN forces remain. Some local leaders say the UN prevents massacres; others say it props up a corrupt government.
1. To what extent is the situation in Bakhar a case for R2P?
Read the worked answer
Threshold: R2P applies to genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The 1,400 killings, 60% by FRA, and 280,000 displaced suggest a widespread or systematic attack on civilians, which could meet the Rome Statute definition of crimes against humanity. The state is unable or unwilling to protect in the north: it controls the capital and has outsourced security to Nara, whose forces have committed abuses. That satisfies the manifest-failure element.
Pillars: Pillar 1 (state protection) has failed in the north. Pillar 2 (international assistance) is present through MINUBA. Pillar 3 (timely and decisive response) is arguable, but R2P does not automatically mean military intervention. Non-military measures, including ICC referral, arms embargo, targeted sanctions and a UN commission of inquiry, are also pillar 3.
Limits:
- R2P is a political norm, not a legal authorisation; the Security Council's selectivity is a problem.
- The government's consent matters. A mission without consent becomes an intervention, with higher risk.
- FRA has said it will not negotiate while UN forces remain, so a stronger mission may escalate.
Judgement: There is a strong prima facie R2P case in the north, but not a clear case for military enforcement across Bakhar. The best reading is that R2P obliges the Council to consider a package: ICC referral, arms embargo and a civilian-protection mission with a clear geographic focus. Claiming a general R2P mandate for regime change would be overreach and would undermine the norm.
2. Evaluate whether the Security Council should renew MINUBA's mandate with strengthened protection-of-civilians powers or authorize a drawdown.
Read the worked answer
Criteria: consent, protection of civilians, exit strategy and accountability.
- Consent: The government demands withdrawal. A mission without consent is legally possible under Chapter VII but politically fragile. The government's contested election weakens its claim to speak for all Bakharis.
- Protection: A sudden drawdown would leave 280,000 displaced people exposed. The Nara force is not a substitute: it guards mining areas, not civilians, and has abuse allegations.
- Exit: A fixed 2025 date is not conditions-based. It creates a deadline for spoilers.
- Accountability: SEA allegations require action, not just a statement. A strengthened mandate should include victim support and vetting.
Options:
- Strengthen PoC and renew: best for civilians, but TCCs may withdraw and consent is contested.
- Authorise drawdown: risks a vacuum and rewards the government's obstruction.
- Phased, conditions-based drawdown: maintain a reinforced presence in the north, transition to a UN-authorised regional force with human-rights vetting, and refer FRA leaders to the ICC.
Judgement: Option 3 is the most defensible. It does not pretend that consent can be ignored, but it refuses to trade civilian protection for a political timetable. The Council should set benchmarks: cessation of attacks on civilians, humanitarian access and accountability for SEA. A drawdown should be triggered by benchmarks, not by a date.
3. Explain how the Bakhar case illustrates the tension between peacekeeping's three basic principles.
Read the worked answer
The three principles:
- Consent: The host state consents to the mission. Bakhar's government has withdrawn consent, which puts the mission in a legal and political bind.
- Impartiality: The mission must not favour a party. But it is mandated to support the transitional government, which creates a perception of partiality.
- Minimum use of force: Traditionally self-defence only; robust PoC mandates allow force to protect civilians.
Tensions:
- Consent vs protection: If the government is a party to the conflict or protects abusers, respecting consent can mean failing civilians. Chapter VII can override consent, but that turns peacekeeping into enforcement.
- Impartiality vs protection: Being impartial between FRA and the government may allow FRA to attack civilians. The correct reading is impartiality in implementation of the mandate, not neutrality between civilians and their attackers.
- Force vs consent: Strengthening PoC requires more force, which TCCs resist and which the government calls neo-colonial.
Judgement: The principles are not a straitjacket; they are a framework for managing trade-offs. The decisive move is to redefine impartiality: the mission should be impartial to the parties but not to the mandate. That justifies protecting civilians from both FRA and government-aligned forces, while still seeking consent for the mission's presence. Without that redefinition, the mission will be paralysed.