(as opposed to a simple cease-fire) is reduced in the
presence of peacekeepers.14 Thus, empirically, peacekeeping limits diplomatic initiatives and undermines
their effectiveness when they do occur.
Table 1: Peacekeeping and the Likelihood of
Negotiation and Mediation Success
No Peacekeeping
Peacekeeping
Successful Negotiation
43%
(0.13)
31%
(0.04)
Successful Mediation
41%
(0.06)
22%
(0.03)
Using data from Grieg and Diehl, we generate the
predicted probabilities that negotiation or mediation
will lead to an agreement based on the presence of
peacekeeping.15 In a set of civil wars16 between 1946
and 1999, the probability of successful negotiation or
mediation is always higher when peacekeepers are not
involved (see Table 1). A civil war includes a successful negotiation in 43 percent of the cases when there
is no peacekeeping presence, but drops to 31 percent
when peacekeepers are involved. High variability in
the estimate for negotiation success, however, means
that we are uncertain about the negative effect of
peacekeeping in this situation, but are confident that
peacekeeping does not increase the prospects for negotiation success. Mediation is about half as likely to
succeed when peacekeepers are present (22 percent)
compared to when they are not (41 percent); this difference is statistically significant supporting the idea
that peacekeeping hinders successful mediation.
Overall, the net effect appears to be that peacekeeping actually diminishes the likelihood of diplomacy
7