The Libyan and Syrian crises have caused major international rifts over the use of force and crisis management. In February CIC convened a conference with the NYU Abu Dhabi Institute and the Brookings Institution to address how the U.S., its allies and emerging powers can rebuild trust around crisis diplomacy. The event involved scholars and officials from the U.S., Europe, China, India and Brazil. CIC is now publishing the conference background paper on the "responsibility to get serious" in crisis management with a further paper reflecting on the discussions in Abu Dhabi, which identified areas for diplomatic progress.
Reports: U.N. Peace Operations
-
The Use of Force, Crisis Diplomacy and the Responsibilities of StatesCenter on International CooperationPublished May 15, 2012UN Peace Operations | Posted May 15, 2012
-
Transition Compacts: Lessons from UN ExperiencesInternational Peace InstitutePublished May 15, 2012All Regions, UN Peace Operations | Posted May 15, 2012
This meeting note captures the proceedings at a seminar on November 2, 2011 on “Transition Compacts: Lessons from UN Experiences.” The seminar sought to learn from previous agreements on peacebuilding and development priorities between national governments and international partners in fragile and conflict-affected states.
During the meeting, the International Peace Institute presented a study on United Nations experiences with this first generation of “transition compacts,” a summary of which is included at the end of this note.
The seminar was hosted by IPI and organized in collaboration with the United Nations and the International Network on Conflict and Fragility (INCAF), a subsidiary body of the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee. Participants included officials from the UN, its member states, the World Bank, and INCAF. The meeting was convened under the Chatham House rule of nonattribution.
-
DR Congo: Local Communities on the Front LineRefugees InternationalPublished April 25, 2012Africa, PoC with Responsibility to Protect, Peacekeeping Doctrine, Protection of Civilians, Security Sector Reform, UN Peace Operations | Posted April 25, 2012
The day-to-day reality for ordinary people in the Democratic Republic of Congo includes all of the following: latent insecurity, ongoing military operations, and systematic attacks by armed groups – including units of the Congolese military. The international community has been providing humanitarian assistance to the DRC for over a decade and a half, but the need remains acute. The local UN peacekeeping operation (MONUSCO) dedicates the majority of its scarce resources to the protection of civilians, and will need to maintain this critical effort for the foreseeable future. Creative protection efforts by the peacekeepers need to be reinforced and supported. Protection monitoring and coordination efforts – led by the UN Refugee Agency – also need to be repaired.
Erin Weir and Peter Orr assessed the humanitarian conditions and security situation in the DRC in March 2012 and came to the following policy conclusions:
- The U.S. and ECHO should provide funds to restore UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) protection monitoring staff in North Kivu to prior levels.
- Donor governments should call on UNHCR – in its capacity as Protection Cluster lead – to strengthen its work on IDP protection. UNHCR protection monitors should be given the task of tracking IDP movements in order to reinforce OCHA’s information gathering, strengthen overall capacity to project the scale of displacement, and respond with timely and adequate assistance.
- The U.S. should identify bilateral funding – in addition to the assessed contributions to UN peacekeeping dedicated specifically for the support of additional Community Liaison Assistants (CLAs), communications equipment, and transportation.
- Donor countries – specifically the U.S., the UK, and the EU – and their institutions must coordinate priorities and key conditions for ongoing support to the government of the DRC. Coordinated offers of funding for development projects must be predicated upon progress in the areas of corruption and impunity, as well as a concrete demonstration of will and a plan to make progress in key areas such as the reform of security sector institutions. -
Security Council Working Methods and UN Peace Operations: The Case of Chad and CAR, 2006-2010Center on International CooperationPublished April 11, 2012Africa, African Union Peacekeeping, UN Peace Operations | Posted April 11, 2012
This paper, the second in a series on Security Council working methods and the performance of peace
operations, addresses the Council’s engagement in Chad and the Central African Republic (CAR) from early 2006 to the end of 2010. While the Council explored options for deploying some sort of UN peacekeeping presence to these countries from mid-2006 onwards, these discussions were secondary to much higher-profile debates about the possibility of a large-scale force in Darfur. After Chad had stated its initial opposition to a UN military deployment, France initiated proposals for the deployments of an EU
military mission linked to a UN police presence to Chad and CAR in mid-2007.
After lengthy negotiations, the two organizations deployed in early 2008, and operated in parallel until March 2009. The EU mission then closed, following a pre-arranged schedule, while the UN mission (MINURCAT) deployed a military presence. However, Chad put a growing number of obstacles in MINURCAT’s way, and eventually withdrew its consent altogether. MINURCAT ended its operations in
December 2010.
The goal of this paper is to show how the Security Council’s working methods affected its dealings with Chad and CAR prior to the launch of MINURCAT and the parallel EU mission (EUFOR Tchad/RCA) and its oversight of the two operations from 2008 to 2010. While the two missions’ performance was shaped by multiple contextual factors (and in EUFOR’s case, European politics) it offers lessons about the relevance of working methods to an operation’s effectiveness. This is particularly true because MINURCAT was subject to almost constant political pressure from the government of Chad, and the Council’s working methods inevitably shaped elements of its response to this pressure. -
Strengthening Preventive Diplomacy and Mediation: Istanbul Retreat of UNSCInternational Peace InstitutePublished April 11, 2012PoC with Responsibility to Protect, Peacekeeping Doctrine, Protection of Civilians, Security Sector Reform, UN Peace Operations | Posted April 11, 2012
In early July 2011, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey hosted an informal retreat
for members of the United Nations Security Council in Istanbul. The retreat gathered ambassadorial-level representatives of the Security Council together with several member states that were not members of the council at the time, senior officials of the United Nations Secretariat, and independent experts to discuss ways to strengthen preventive diplomacy and mediation. In an informal setting and under the Chatham House rule of nonattribution, the discussion sought to build on and enrich the ongoing debate on how best to realize the full potential of preventive diplomacy and mediation as cost-effective options for dealing with crises. The exchange of views benefited from insights gained at the first Istanbul Retreat for members of the Security Council in June 2010. It drew, as well, on lessons learned from recent and ongoing crises and conflicts that have taxed the council’s capacities for maintaining international peace and security. -
Empowering Local PeacebuildersUnited States Institute of PeacePublished March 26, 2012PoC with Responsibility to Protect, Peacekeeping Doctrine, Protection of Civilians, Security Sector Reform, All Regions, UN Peace Operations, US Gov't Peacekeeping Issues | Posted March 26, 2012
Summary
Problem Identified
Peacebuilding operations in conflict and post-conflict societies often undermine local capacity, ownership, and sustainability. The acknowledged remedy is to empower local actors to take the lead in planning and implementing programs, but few empowerment strategies that work in practice have been documented and explained.Action Taken
- Several organizations have reconfigured empowerment techniques traditionally used for peacetime development to work in societies emerging from conflict.
- Local actors have seized the chance presented by these new approaches to develop and implement their own creative solutions to conflict. Local ownership has in turn enabled the integration of other sectors of society and government into peacebuilding activities.Lessons Learned
- Focus on facilitating processes instead of trying to achieve specific outcomes. Successful interventions help participants open channels to defend their own interests, with the participants determining the final decisions and outcomes.
- Design programs to promote learning rather than to yield specific results. Effective programs create opportunities for participants to seek out and absorb knowledge critical to good decision making.
- Don’t be deflected by political pressures. Even well-known empowerment principles (such as respecting local counterparts) can be sidelined if interveners do not prioritize them above the kinds of political pressures typically encountered in conflict zones. -
Peace Operations Partnerships: Complex but Necessary CooperationCenter for International Peace OperationsPublished March 19, 2012African Union Peacekeeping, NATO & EU Peacekeeping, Peacekeeping Doctrine, Protection of Civilians, Security Sector Reform, All Regions, UN Peace Operations, US Gov't Peacekeeping Issues | Posted March 19, 2012
In a short paper for the Center for International Peace Operations, the German think-tank, Jake Sherman and Richard Gowan argue that as NATO pulls back from Afghanistan and the UN downsizes some missions (including those in Haiti and the Congo) organizations including the AU, Arab League and ASEAN may take more responsibility for new peace operations.
In cases including Afghanistan, Kosovo, Somalia and the Congo, multiple organizations are working together to consolidate stability and build functioning states. Although NATO and the UN are the main actors in global peace operations today, it is likely that a variety of other organizations including the African Union (AU), the Arab League and the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) will play an increasingly prominent role in the future. These actors will need a great deal of help, ranging from military assistance to administrative back-up. The UN, NATO and EU will be called upon to play significant supporting roles. Managing these complex partnerships will be essential to making existing and new peace operations succeed.
-
Briefing Paper: Annual Review of Global Peace Operations 2012Center on International CooperationPublished March 16, 2012All Regions, UN Peace Operations | Posted March 16, 2012
The past year could have been a disastrous one for U.N. peacekeeping. Twelve months ago, Côte d’Ivoire appeared to be on the brink of renewed civil war in spite of the presence there of United Nations and French forces. South Sudan’s vote for independence in January 2011 also had the potential to unleash mass violence. From Haiti to Liberia to the Democratic Republic of Congo, peacekeepers were charged with overseeing elections that might have resulted in significant instability. In Somalia, U.N.-mandated African Union (AU) forces were locked in grinding combat with Islamist al-Shabab rebels.
Yet peace operations demonstrated an unexpected degree of resilience overall, as chronicled in the Center on International Cooperation’s new Annual Review of Global Peace Operations. The U.N. reasserted itself in Côte d’Ivoire, and though presidential polls in the DRC proved to be deeply flawed, those in Haiti and Liberia were conducted relatively smoothly thanks in part to the U.N. In Somalia, al-Shabab pulled back from Mogadishu as the AU forces took the initiative. Other regional organizations also found themselves being drawn into peace operations: The Arab League sent an admittedly ill-fated observer mission to Syria, while the Association of Southeast Asian Nations mandated an observer mission to help reduce tensions on the Thai-Cambodian border.
-
Peace Operations Partnerships: The UN Security Council and (Sub-)Regional OrganizationsCenter for International Peace OperationsPublished March 16, 2012All Regions, UN Peace Operations | Posted March 16, 2012
Since the end of the Cold War, the UN Security Council has consistently partnered with regional and subregional organizations around the world within the framework of Chapter VIII of the UN Charter, including through the authorization of peace operations by these organizations. Enhanced consultation and more fluid interaction between the Council and regional organizations can have an immediate impact on the successful conduct of peace operations on the ground and would also improve long-term trust and cooperation between the Council and its partners. This policy brief sets out several recommendations for the Council and regional partners to consider in order to improve cooperation at the strategic and political level on the planning, management and oversight of peace operations. The recommendations aim to strike a realistic balance between the demands of certain regional organizations for a more horizontal relationship with the Council, and the wariness of some permanent members of the Council towards such proposals.
-
Peace Operations Partnerships: Assessing Cooperation Mechanisms between SecretariatsCenter for International Peace OperationsPublished March 16, 2012African Union Peacekeeping, NATO & EU Peacekeeping, Peacekeeping Doctrine, All Regions, UN Peace Operations, US Gov't Peacekeeping Issues | Posted March 19, 2012
During the last decade, peace operation partnerships between the United Nations (UN) and regional organizations have advanced considerably both in operational and institutional terms. With the growing involvement of regional organizations in the area of peacekeeping, coordination between the UN and its potential partners is important in order to avoid duplication or outright inter-organizational rivalry. Recognizing that institutionalised relations between the UN and emerging peacekeeping actors such as the European Union (EU), African Union (AU) and even NATO can lead to beneficial burdensharing and mutual reinforcement, organizations have made conscious efforts to move from ad-hoc cooperation to more permanent and predictable mechanisms. Effective peace operations partnerships depend on coherent and strategically structured relations at the inter-secretariat level: different organizational cultures, agendas and approaches need to be systematically integrated. Despite some progress in UN-EU, UN-AU and UN-NATO relations, significant challenges persist in designing, maintaining and improving interorganizational schemes for peace operations.
