Notes on peace operations

GENEVA CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY

Notes for my seminar of 02 June 2015

Victor Angelo

 Reinventing Peace Operations?

(Reflections and question marks)

World is changing rapidly. But are today´s conflicts very different from the ones 15-20 ago? Yes and no.

Examples:

            South Sudan, CAR and Congo: clear failure of the state building processes. The same in Libya.

            Syria: the national dimensions combined with regional dimensions.

            Very different from civil war in Mozambique in late 80´s or the Cambodia conflict of early 90´s or the Sierra Leone crisis of 1999/2000?

o   The big difference might be at the level of the Non-State Actors:

ü In the past, we had insurgencies, national liberation movements, separatists, revolutionaries with a cause, warlord’s armies…

ü Now, the players are more difficult to categorise and to fight/contact, they are more fragmented, we witness continuous changes of alliances, they make greater use of terrorist methods and pose news threats to peacekeepers and civilians, they have closer links with Organised Crime, they do not accept the role of the UN, they do not seek a peace agreement – they want to win.

From forcing an agreement, that was the past line, to today´s approach, which is about winning the argument.

o   Also, the use of different means of waging war, combining kinetic with soft power: propaganda, social networks; there is indeed a greater emphasis on winning the narrative

The story that is told to the population and the world matters

o   Furthermore, the information is now global. Actions are taken to get international attention

v Above all, what is changing is our approach to conflict management and resolution: from a one-dimension approach to an integrated, comprehensive approach; but we are not yet good enough at dealing with:

            Asymmetric threats

            The narrative/image

Each conflict is different, but they all have in the end a number of common features:

Ø Poor leadership:

We should pay more attention to issues of leadership, time-bound mandates, political legitimacy, inclusiveness, power balancing between the executive, the legislative and the judiciary, power-sharing, constitutional issues

Ø Governance performance and state failure:

Many years of unsatisfactory governance, unable to respond to the basic aspirations of the populations, including the human security dimension and human rights, and widespread corruption

Ø The extreme competition for and the control of natural resources:

In the past, diamonds, coltan – short for columbite–tantalite

Now, water in Darfur, and access to rangeland in the Sahel and CAR

Ø A combination of domestic and regional dimensions:

Domestic political crisis are further aggravated by the interference of regional conflicting interests: Syria is a striking example

Ø They are chaotic and their management is about the ability to manage the chaos

Complexity is a key feature of any violent conflict; the response cannot be one-size-fits-all

International order: Are we getting into a more dangerous world?

Depends on one´s perspective. We could spend quite a bit of time discussing the question.

·        However, a more connected world is certainly a more dangerous world. Local problems become easily regional and then international threats to peace, stability and security.

·        The world media channels bring the problems to our homes and we feel threatened

·        There is also a new race for dominance: the West, the Fundamentalist Islam, Russia, China, other emerging powers

·        And a clash of values and cultures, somehow; some type of an anti-West surge

Is the use of force the solution?

Again, yes and no.

We are seeing a new arms race and the witnessing the call for increased investments in defence, after many years when the dominant views were about cooperation, defence budget reductions and disarmament

At the same time, there are calls for greater security cooperation through the Interpol and a better exchange of information: that was the case last week, when the Security Council discussed again the approaches to respond to terrorism.

But we live in culture that tends to give priority attention to the military and the national security issues first, to answer to the issues with a hammer and consider the police as lesser tool

The only long-lasting solution to a conflict is a political agreement that strikes a balance between conflicting interests; this means, politics first and in the end

The UN Security Council is eventually the only source to authorise the legitimate use of force

A few positive comments on the UN SC:

·        Let´s be positive and objective about the Council; a cynical position leads nowhere; we all know about its deficit of representativeness and the need to reform; however, nobody knows when the reform will happen

·        Every State wants to have the Council on its side; the Council´s agreement and support are considered as critical for the international image of any State

·        The UN SC pays special attention to peace operations – in particular to peacekeeping – and has accumulated a lot of experience in the supervision of such operations

·        It is a better position than any other authority to impose an integrated response by the UN agencies, funds and programmes

However, there are a number of short-comings the UN SC should address:

·        Its current divisions; they have been exacerbated in the aftermath of the Libyan crisis of 2011; they are inspired by tensions between the P5, geopolitical interests; they block the decisions on major crisis, such as the one on Syria

·        Strike a better balance between peacekeeping and special political missions; the SC shows greater interest for peacekeeping operations for different reasons (military, police, budgetary, …)

·        Better define the links between peace operations and peace building; peace building approaches are still very much based on phasing out and cost reductions

·        Be able to take into account the interests and grievances of Non-State Actors; the Council´s perspective is still too much based on the State (and the government of the day) as being the key interlocutor and the player; also, there is a need to go beyond the national borders and bring in the regional dimensions – work better with the regional organisations

·        Improve the understanding of the integrated response concept; it cannot be just the approval of a huge and diversified mandate and the expectation that the SRSG will be able to bring together the different parts of the UN

·         Focus more on providing strategic direction when dealing with the UN Secretariat and the peace missions

·        Re-assess the pertinence of the peacekeeping principles – Consent of the parties, Impartiality and Non-use of force except in self-defence and defence of the mandate – and define better the “robustness approach”

On Robustness:

ü 2/3 of the UN peacekeepers are deployed in countries where ther is no peace to keep

ü The accent is on force not on the politics and dialogue process

ü Tactical use of force: it calls for the UN SC approval and the consent of the host country;

ü Makes the UN a party to the conflict

ü Creates divisions among the Troop Contributing Countries (TCCs)  and UN key member states

Looking ahead, we can expect robust operations to be the new norm

The approval should be guided by:

Ø The seriousness and the urgency of the threat; atrocities, Protection of Civilians, extreme humanitarian urgency

Ø A reasonable motive: the military action has to be seen as the best way to stop the threat

Ø Last resort

Ø Proportionate;  just the necessary force

Ø Based on a clear understanding of all its consequences

Ø Clearly explained to the public opinion

But, in my opinion, robust operations should be carried out by either:

Ø Coalition of Forces under a UN SC mandate

Ø Regional organisations  ( AU, AL, NATO, EU, CSTO…)

Ø Making better use of international police systems, shared information and enhanced combination of military/police/civilian responses

It´s indeed time to have a better coordination between the UN and the regional organisations. That´s a key path towards the future.

It´s also time to address the marginalisation of the UN in peace operations; the UN is very busy, the demand is increasing, but it is kept away from the major conflicts. Or it cannot be seen as just a machinery to address the conflicts of the poor countries.