|
|
- 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.
|
Tags
You must be logged in to add tags.
|
Writer Profile
Ahmad Rashady
This user has not written anything in his panorama profile yet.
|
Comments
Nice! Yambwa, Nziya Jean-Pierre | Jun 17th, 2004
A very comprehensive explanation on peacebuilding and peacekeeping. Well detailed and useful for peacebuilders
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.
|
|
