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.
