Aspects of Peacekeeping
As recent events in Kabul revealed, the British have assumed a greater role in contemporary peacekeeping than the size of their military might have led one to expect. The reasons are complex, having much to do with imperial traditions that are both enduring and transmuted. This collection of papers, the product of a conference at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, shows that the British military-academic complex is thinking hard about the subject. This volume touches on the lessons of the Yugoslav conflict as well as broader issues such as the role of the United Nations, the legitimization of peacekeeping within traditional militaries (the subject of a particularly interesting essay by James Gow and Christopher Dandeker), and relations with nongovernmental organizations. No grand conclusions here, but the volume is evidence of serious thinking on a mission that most American officers and politicians would be quite happy to leave to others.
Related
We all turn away, however, from the thought that nuclear war may be as inescapable as death, and may end our lives and our society within this generation or the next. We plan and work every day for the twenty-first century-as parents educating our children, as young workers saving for retirement, as a nation that seeks to preserve its physical environment, its political traditions, its cultural heritage. For this larger horizon- encompassing for the younger generation simply the common expectation of a healthy life-we do in fact assume "nuclear immortality." We believe, or we act as if we believe, that thanks to a certain international order, the existing arsenals of nuclear weapons with their almost incomprehensible destructiveness will never be used.
We are evidently at the beginning of the third major effort since 1945 to establish whether or not it is possible for the Soviet Union and the West to live together on this planet under conditions of tolerable stability and low tension. The first effort occurred in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War; the second, in the years after Stalin's death; and historians may well date the third from the aftermath of the Cuban missile crisis of last October.
IN the coming decade, the countries of the Middle East and North Africa will unquestionably remain the scene of turmoil, with an ebb and flow of crises and with strained relations with the outside world. However, we should not allow the staccato of crises to obscure the major structural changes which will profoundly alter the area and our relationships with it. Revolution from below, political upheaval and violence are common enough. Occasionally outsiders forget that these are not linked solely to Soviet intrusion but have their roots in the nineteenth century, in the great trauma associated with "the impact of the West." Change has been speeded by the cold war and the willingness of both the Soviet Union and the United States to provide the means. But, domestically, the revolution is fostered, indeed often more effectively fostered, by régimes which are politically conservative than by those which think of themselves as socialist or revolutionary. In the Middle East and North Africa, there is no régime which does not put a considerable part of its effort into creating the potential of revolution. It is universally accepted that no government can survive which does not espouse the cause of modernization.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.