Some clarifications first:

For somebody who spent almost all his professional life in field operations, writing a book like this is a startling experience. One such startling experience is entering the haze of terminology. While I often felt it difficult to understand the real problems of conflicts in the field, I felt now puzzled by the conflicting use of so many terms in academic literature and documentation.

Everyday terms appear suddenly questionable – even inappropriate. For example, we still speak of “peacekeeping” missions and this although these missions are now sent into situations in which there is no peace to keep. At the same time, we speak of “peacebuilding” in postconflict situations. But isn't postconflict peacebuilding a contradiction? Why do we want to build peace if the conflict is over? Virtually all of today's UN peace operations are operating in armed intrastate conflicts with no peace in sight. Wouldn't it therefore be better to call today's peacekeeping missions “peacebuilding operations”? With the use of these terms, we further imply that there is a sequence in which peacebuilding follows peacekeeping even though common logic suggests that one would have to “build” a peace before one can “keep” it.

And so many other terms become ambiguous such as “fragile/failed/ failing states,” “nation building,” “state building,” and “the West.” It is not even clear what we mean when we speak of “the United Nations.” Is it a group of member states, the Security Council, the General Assembly, or the Secretary-General and his staff? Greater clarity would here be important. The meaning we give to any such terms will ultimately shape the arguments that we want to make – or is it that the arguments shape the meanings of terms used? We all have our preconceived ideas and may hence read something very different into a text, in part of how each of us understands the terminology used. All this tends to create misunderstandings and confusion between the writer and readers as well as among writers and readers. And it confuses an inexperienced writer like me.

In this Glossary, I try to explain what I mean by the various terms used in the book. This is necessary as I have, at times, deviated from their more common use. I hope this will clarify and not further spread confusion.