The following paper focuses on the critical issue of nation-building in the post-conflict era and its aftereffects on peacekeeping missions. Many peacekeeping operations have engaged in the fight to keep peace without really taking into account the positive outcomes that nation-building has to offer. Often “the military culture is dedicated to making war rather than peace, and likes order, control and discipline as distinct from murkiness, collaboration and strengthening the rules.”2 Essentially, nation-states put far more effort into ending or initiating wars than they do into making or working towards peace. Nation-building and peace-building efforts are needed now more than ever and it is imperative that nation-states perform and encourage peace-building activities.
For many of the colonized nations, “independence has not necessarily meant freedom of the individual. It has frequently meant authoritarian one-party governments as the preferred means of building a strong, integrated, cohesive nation-state…”3 The United Nations, along with various regional organizations, is now faced with the problem of nation-building when trying to save failed states from the calamities of war. But why has the approach to nation-building not been an easy task in areas such as Africa (specifically UNOSOM I and II in Somalia, and UNMIH in Haiti), but seems to have worked exceptionally in places like East Timor in the UNTAET Mission? It has been argued that member states within the United Nations follow their national interests and Africa is a burden that no member-state wants on its shoulders. One might also argue that East Timor is closer to Australia thus making it easy for resources to get into place quite quickly, overcoming the cumbersome process of approval that burdens most peacekeeping missions. The mission was on the ground and active within a month, indeed what former Secretary-General Boutros Boutros Ghali envisaged.
Nation-states engulfed in political and economical instability as well as ethnic strife prove to be a hard case for nation-building. This is not because of their political or economical dimensions, but because of the lack of the rule of law and democratic governance. This is true in cases such as those of Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo.
The increasing demands placed on the international community for intervention in conflicts across the world, the wide range of activities that need to be covered, and the complexities and dangers of peace operations, have created a number of issues that need to be understood if future peace operations are to have any success. The most important lesson we have learned from the experiences of the last seven years is that the United Nations organization was never designed to handle commitments of the magnitude of Cambodia, Somalia, and the former Yugoslavia –individually they would have been difficult, but undertaking all three more or less simultaneously in 1992/93 was impossible. It is therefore a tribute to the dedication and selflessness of the United Nations Secretariat and the personnel who took part in these operations that they achieved even what they did which, despite its shortcomings, was certainly not insignificant. Hence, for the maintenance of international peace and security, the building of institutional capabilities is crucial. An appropriate division of responsibilities between the United Nations and other international actors in the spheres of preventive action, peacemaking, peacekeeping, enforcement action, and peace building, needs to be created in order to enable more effective and comprehensive responses to conflicts around the world. Current experiences indicate that the United Nations may be most effective in the fields of preventive action, traditional peacekeeping, humanitarian missions, mediation, and peace building activities. Thus, the specific sphere of nation-building is here examined to give the reader a glimpse of one approach that has proved to be complex but seems the most vital and prudent.
For many scholars and diplomats, nation-building and peacekeeping seem to be inextricably linked. Moreover, the Secretary-General’s 1999 Report on the work of the UN speaks of the need for ‘multidimensional peacekeeping operations’. This in itself seems to demonstrate a need for a new definition or a new objective for the conventional work of peacekeeping. Therefore, the question thus becomes: how did nation-building come about and what are we looking forward to in the peacekeeping dimension?
One has to bear in mind that in the peacekeeping epoch, nation-building has become synonymous with peace-building. “Following a long period of relatively simple operations, we had a period of assertive multilateralism from about 1998 onwards, where more complex operations in places like Namibia, El Salvador, and Cambodia saw peacekeepers engaging in what would come to be called ‘peace-builing’.”4 In this sense, “peace can not be kept without recovery, basic infrastructure, government services, and social and economic improvement (and all of which can contribute in the longer run to institution-building, democratization, human rights and reconciliation)…”5 and it involves “tasks such as disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of former combatants, resettlement of refugees, police training and supervision, election monitoring and other transitional administrative tasks.”6
In 1999 the Security Council issued mandates for a “comprehensive peace-building operation that would include a military component but where the focus would be primarily on major civilian elements of post-conflict recovery, such as rehabilitation, reconstruction and good governance in both Kosovo and East Timor.”7 However, this is not the first time the Security Council has issued a mandate for peacekeeping missions that included peace-building activities. Other peacekeeping missions have entailed tasks such as electoral assistance in Cambodia and peace efforts in Burundi, Tajikistan, Liberia and Guinea-Bissau, to name a few. Chapter VII operations in Somalia, Bosnia, and the genocidal calamity in Rwanda have all made the approach to peace-building a much more difficult one.
Nation-building or peace-building has become more comparable to development in the peacekeeping era. Mr. Omar Bakhet, Director of the UNDP Emergency Response Division, notes that development has been associated with peace-building in the sense that it takes place in or after a conflict with the additional purpose of fostering an environment secure enough to allow for the exit of foreign troops or other organizations. He furthers notes that this associations fails to take into account the metaphysical aspects of peace-building - that while development focuses on poverty eradication, environment protection and social development, peace building is more concerned with the healing of human relations within a target community.
When dealing with the concept of nation-building, certain issues surface. For many of the nations that contribute troops, the issue of peacekeepers going into a situation they’re not trained for is indeed alarming. GOP presidential nominee George Bush, during the presidential debates, openly stated that American troops are trained to go to war and win, not to go and build nations or engage in nation-building. However, it seems that George Bush undermines the special responsibility that lies within the American civil society. Enduring peace requires a strong, viable, and assertive civil society – a society, which widens democratic space and facilitates opportunities for citizens to participate in the political realm. Indeed this special responsibility is what is needed from all peoples for supporting and building constituencies for peace-building activities.
Former Secretary-General Boutros Boutros Ghali noted in his ‘An Agenda for Peace’ that there can be no peace without economic and social development. He draws a connection between developmental activities and peacekeeping. It a fundamental belief that peacekeeping can not occur without there being peace to keep and peace can not exist without the political, social and economic vivacity of the people and the state. Thus, the United Nations and other international and regional organizations should engage in nation-building and peace-building activities in addition to peacekeeping. After all, nowhere in the charter can one find a provision for peacekeeping responsibility placed on the member-states; thus peace-building can be adopted just as peacekeeping has. Some believe that nation-building or peace-building holds more value than peacekeeping. Many scholars have placed the blame on the developed world, many of whom are the colonial powers. Imperialism has placed much of the developing world in a state of economic instability. It is argued that if responsible colonial powers put more effort into conflict management, prevention, and other such things, they would be laying the foundation for a fruitful society. Therefore is peace-building a possible solution to peacekeeping?
Peace-building is unquestionably a possible solution to peacekeeping. Peace-building, a process that is inseparable from sustained democratization and economic development, has achieved a great deal. Investing in social and economic development is one of the surest ways to build a solid foundation for long term stability, within and between societies. It is absolutely necessary to understand the different mechanisms that are involved in building peace and how it can offer to be a solution to peacekeeping.
Nicole Ball on ‘The Challenges of Rebuilding War-Torn Societies’ gives a clear picture of the process involved in peace-building. Ball explains that peace-building is part of conflict resolution, which is aimed at reaching an agreement on key issues so that fighting can be halted and social and economic reconstruction can begin. “The peace-building stage consists of two phases: transition and consolidation. Priorities during these two phases center on strengthening political institutions, consolidating internal and external security, and revitalizing the economy and the society. The major objectives of the transition phase are to establish a government with a sufficient degree of legitimacy, to operate effectively and to implement key reforms mandated by peace accords. The first major objective of the consolidation phase is to continue the reform process…”8 through economic and social recovery programs.
Mr. K.Y. Amoako, Executive Secretary of ECA, has acknowledged that the United Nations has lately come to terms with the gripping fact of destruction of life and property, destroyed infrastructures and institutions, and warring factions which seem to lack the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. He notes that solutions to peace must be devised in a context that takes into account the following: the high cost of conflict and the economics of peace, the importance of peace to development, the role of civil society in promoting peace, and the reasons why women should be involved in the peace process. One can notice in the fourteen political and peace-building missions approved (page 18), that indeed the United Nations is now taking peace-building seriously.
‘The Report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations’, better known as the ‘Brahimi Report’, made clear recommendations on the positive effects of peace-building activities. In fact, the Report made not only general recommendations on peace-building strategies, but also examined specific issues such as finance, human rights, rule of law, and future discussions regarding the United Nations’ efforts in developing and implementing peace-building strategies. If peace-building is to be a possible solution to peacekeeping, a number of issues have to be tackled.
First, it is quite obvious that peacekeeping forces play an enormous role in supporting peace-building activities. However, we often see failures in this task for a number of reasons. One of these is the fact that a number of mandates have lacked clarity, achievable goals, and widespread support from the member-states. Peace-building cannot work without the help of the people. One clear example of this absence of will is Somalia. Mohamed Sahnoun, then Secretary-General Boutros Boutros Ghali’s first Special Envoy for Somalia, knew that in order to halt the catastrophic situation in Somalia, it was necessary to engage the Somalis themselves. Former United States Ambassador to Somalia Robert Oakley “favored Sahnoun’s style and encouraged grassroots and regional approaches. [The Special Envoy] Supported local peace efforts and the establishment of local police forces approved by and accountable to local administrative committees led by prominent members of civil society.”9 This type of effort is at the heart of peace-building efforts, but due to the national interest of involved states and a mismanaged peacekeeping operation, it all became disastrous.
In recent times, there have been too many unrealistic goals, too many vague directions to peacekeepers and peace-builders in the field, and too many changes of mandate in the midst of operations.10 Any decision made by the Council must take into account the interests of the major powers, the concerns of contributing states, the situation in the country concerned, and the inherent capabilities of peacekeepers.11 But as we have seen, the United Nations, like any other bureaucracy, has its share of problems.
Through his experiences in rehabilitation-oriented field work, Professor Moore at the John F. Kennedy School of Government makes the following observations and recommendations regarding the relationship between peace-building and peacekeeping:
- When peacekeeping forces are involved in peace-building (in the early ‘natural interface’ between security and rehabilitation tasks), their efforts seem to have the greatest effect. For example: providing security and logistical support for humanitarian and developmental activities; repair of light infrastructure including roads, bridges, clinics, schools; de-mining; disarming and demobilizing.
- The experience, equipment and capabilities of peacekeeping troops in peace-building activities varies greatly; this calls for selective use under an integrated structure and more emphasis on preparation and training.
- The advanced commitment to and planning for peace-building at the time a peacekeeping operation is undertaken does not automatically result in greater involvement by the military in peace-building. This involvement is all too rare and its overall benefits are unarguable.
- The anticipated early exit of peacekeeping forces and in some cases its reality tends to hamper peace-building activities, since this makes the assurance of adequate security more fragile
The evidence seems to support the notion that some peacekeeping forces have more potential - i.e. a greater capacity for peace-building than they are employing - yet it is not often clear whether costs would justify more involvement.12 Professor Moore is one of the many critics who think that peace-building should be a large part of peacekeeping activities. As it seems, the General Assembly has been requesting that the Secretary-General make recommendations and look further into this concept.
If peace-building is to be a solution to peacekeeping, the resources and finances of peace-building efforts has to also be examined. “Currently, peacekeeping activities are funded by UN assessed contributions[,] but peace-building activities are dependent on both assessed contributions and Trust Fund voluntary contributions.”13 The result thus becomes inadequate funds due to both delays by states in their arrears and reimbursements to states for activities engaged in.
Peace-building is a long-term solution. It is able to involve local talent and can “develop in the people an indigenous, self-sustaining capability to run their own country. For a territory to become a true nation, its people must be both willing and able to take responsibility for their own lives.”14 Peoples’ basic needs for livelihoods and opportunities must be met if a society is to recover from the damaging effects of violent conflict.15 Peace-building is “about empowering the local community to solve its own problems. It envisages the eventual development – with the help of the international community – of an indigenous, self-sustaining conflict resolution mechanism. It is based on the revival of the local coping mechanisms and value systems, the fostering of local dynamics for peace and the eventual transfer of local ownership of external generated peace-building initiative.”16 Peace-building also offers something that peacekeeping does not – the ability to be able to bring together NGO’s, UN bodies, political parties, foundations and, most importantly, local talents who can engage in creating and maintaining a steady ground where peace can flourish.
Whatever their view on peacekeeping, both optimists and pessimists agree that the present arrangements for peacekeeping are far from perfect, indeed not even adequate.17 Therefore, if the question of peacekeeping is to be reexamined, then peace-building should also be given much more attention.
Peace-building activities are not self-sustainable and in order for the United Nations or other relevant institutions to bring about their realization; it has to be done with several elements in mind. It is preposterous that it took the failure of several missions for the United Nations to understand how peace-building can contribute and the ways in which peace-building is undertaken. The Lessons learned from previous missions sheds light on the notion that the United Nation’s peacekeeping role cannot focus solely on peace maintenance. It is the belief that many peacekeeping missions were failures because they did little in employing peace-building activities or, if they did, they didn’t go far enough nor did they properly regard several crucial elements.
First, the way in which the media handles itself teaches an important lesson. “…News networks rarely, if ever, profile the efforts of the civilian and civilian police personnel involved in peacekeeping/peace-building missions. Nor are the peace-builders easily identifiable in the film clips.”17 The Security Council has to carefully deliberate over decisions for the setting up of peace operations. The Yugoslav and Somalia operations were set up under stress from both the European Community and the mass media and later suffered brutal setbacks.
Second, as Professor Jayakumar notes, the United Nation’s resources are stretched very thinly due to the various ongoing peacekeeping/peace-building missions. The United Nations cannot keep on adding mission after mission as its responsibility is to keep peace. Wars are unavoidable, but the United Nations has learnt to pay more attention to their ability to sub-contract these missions to regional organizations. In Sierra Leone, ECOWAS increased its responsibility in the fight for peace with help of the United States and other actors. Even though one might say that regional organizations sometimes lack the rules and standards to be able to handle such operations, it is vital to extend the benefits of peace-building endeavors to those who are able to handle it firsthand and often third parties have a hard time doing so.
Third, to better look into lessons learned, it is critical that we examine some missions that have impacted the concepts of peacekeeping and peace-building. There have been many things learned from these missions but only the observations made regarding peace-building need to be examined for the purpose of this paper.
In Cambodia “the overall mandate for UNTAC stemming from the peace agreements was too ambitious, unrealistic, and this included giving the military component more than it could handle (e.g., disarmament, cantonments, demobilization, assuring security throughout the country); the peacekeeping troops were used flexibly and selectively under its UN command in peace-building activities, including transportation of goods and supplies, support of refugee repatriation and reintegration, de-mining, some road-building and farming-livestock training, and the invaluable role they played in providing security for elections…some interesting peace-building projects were taken on by the Cambodian military, but it [was] difficult to tell how much they were inspired by the UN model and how much they were motivated by politics and commerce as distinct from a commitment for the military to play a genuine nation-building role.”18 The notions of clarity of purpose and setting an achievable mandate were born from UNTAC.
One of the most encouraging efforts in peace-building can be found in both Haiti and Kosovo. Here, the United Nations learned that cooperating with or intervention by regional organizations is a good idea. Although UNMIH’s basic mandate was to provide security, aid in the electoral process, and assistance in the establishing of a functioning police force, a partnership between OAS and the UN in MICIVIH was created. This collaboration, ”which worked to monitor, protect and advance human rights and also engage in training and institution-building with the judiciary, prisons and the police, and its relations with peacekeepers and with UNMIH, deserves careful attention”19 In Kosovo, peace-building has been undertaken from a development standpoint leading to the recovery of communities thus enabling the Kosovars to participate in the rebuilding process.
The mistakes in the UNOSOM missions have made it clear that peace-building has to involve the local peoples. It is pointless to build peace for the short-term; rather, the people should be actively involved in the process so they may shape their own future. Somalia and all the other examples mentioned have paved the way for the UNTAET mission in East Timor. The United Nations now seems to be applying the lessons they’ve learned. UNTAET so far seems to be empowering the local communities; it is engaging in capacity building for policy building and implementation, it has a mandate that involves a wide range of activities with emphasis on development for basic institutions of the state, and it is coordinating with other humanitarian organizations. This is true peace-building.
It is not the intention of this paper to claim that peacekeeping is of no value and that it is less important than peace-building. Of course peace-building is vital, but in a world connected through globalization and communication, we ought to do more. We shouldn’t simply solve problems as they emerge, but should actively work towards their prevention. We have witnessed that states, often with the encouragement of many of their citizens, are reluctant to pay some of their arrears to the United Nations. It might be fair if states are reluctant to pay their arrears and contribute to civic education in the formal school systems that can build positive social values and promote democratic governance. We should encourage educators to integrate the concept of peace-building into school curricula and teach our youth about peaceful co-existence, the importance of good-governance, respect for human rights and peaceful means of conflict resolution. Although peacekeeping might evolve as the world changes, we need to have our youths ready to cope with those changes. They must be well equipped to fight for peace.
Peace-building, as witnessed in Somalia, will never work if the people whom the peace-builders are attempting to help are not involved. An equal amount of time should be spent on addressing the long-term root causes of conflicts such as underdevelopment, environmental degradation, poverty and gender inequality. We should promote self-sustainability and self-sufficiency - after all peacekeeping missions are seen as third parties and do not work as a long-term solution.
It is indeed a serious reflection on the callousness and indifference of the international community that, in the case of developments in the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, and Rwanda, the states who were involved were not provided with all of the available information and data on the events that led to the crisis, the stances of the political leaders, the nuances that were to significantly affect the attitudes of the parties of the conflict, factual details of the mission area, and so forth. This lack of honesty has cost the international community greatly.
The United Nations and other international actors must therefore invest a great deal in preventive action. Yes, successful preventive action may be costly, but it is the first line of defense in saving lives and sparing general destruction. Therefore, as we look into the 21st century, it is essential that we do not allow the inadequacies of previous operations to convince us that peacekeeping/peace-building operations don’t work. We should instead learn from our mistakes so that future missions can be more successful. There is so much the international community can do to ensure the maintenance of international peace and security and there is no way it can absolve itself of that responsibility.
1. SIPRI-UNESCO Handbook, Peace, Security and Conflict Prevention, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Oxford University Press 1998
2. Rivkin, Arnold, Nation-Building in Africa: Problems and Prospects, Rudgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ 1969, p.9
3. Ibid.
4, 6, 7. Omar Bakhet, Director, Emergency Response Division, UNDP, New York; East Timor, (Narssrine Azimi, Chang Li Lin. The Nexus Between Peacekeeping and Peace-Building: Debriefing and Lessons, UNITAR, IPS, JIIA, Kluer Law International 2000)
5. Jonathan Moore, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard Univ. Cambridge, Mass.; Peacekeeping from a Peace-Building Perspective, p.71
8. Crock, Hampson, Aall, Managing Global Chaos, United States Institute of Peace, Washington, DC, 1997
9. Hussein, M. Adam, Somalia: A Terrible Beauty Being Born.
10, 11. Prof. S. Jayakumar, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Law, Singapore (Nassrine Azimi, Chang Li Lin, The Nexus Between Peacekeeping and Peace-Building: Debriefing and Lessons, UNITAR, IPS, JIIA, Kluwer Law International 2000)
12. Ibid, p. 74-5.
13, 14, 17. Prof. S. Jayakumar, Minister for Foreign Affairs and law, Singapore (Nassrine Azmi, Chiang Li Lin, The Nexus Between Peacekeeping and Peace-Building: Debriefing and Lessons, UNITAR, IPS, JIIA; Kluwer Law International 2000)
15, 16. Omar Bakhet, Director, Emergency Response Division, UNDP, New York; East Timor, (Nassrine Azimi, Chang Li Lin, The Nexus Between Peacekeeping and Peace-Building: Debriefing and Lessons, UNITAR, IPS, JIIA, Kluwer Law International 2000)
17. Prof. S. Jayakum, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Law, Singapore (Nassrine Azmi, Chiang Li Lin, The Nexus Between Peacekeeping and Peace-Building: Debriefing and Lessons, UNITAR, IPS, JIIA; Kluwer Law International 2000)
18. Jonathan Moore, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard Univ. Cambridge, Mass.; Peacekeeping from a Peace-Building Perspective (Nassrine Azmi, Chiang Li Lin, The Nexus Between Peacekeeping and Peace-Building: Debriefing and Lessons, UNITAR, IPS, JIIA; Kluwer Law International 2000)
19. Ibid.
« return.