| Author | Connie Peck |
| Publication | Saerching for Peace in Africa |
| Year | 1999 |
Keywords
conflict resolution ; conflict preventionA More Strategic Partnership for Preventing and Resolving Conflict
With the end of the cold war, the United Nations and regional organisations were called upon to assume greater responsibility for conflict resolution and prevention than ever before. But due to the changing nature of conflict which was now mostly within states, a significant problem was posed for inter-governmental organisations which were designed to manage disputes between states and whose charters specifically prohibited them from 'interfering in the internal affairs' of their members. This new situation meant that the UN and regional organisations had to reconsider how to meet this new challenge. It also led to ongoing debate about which kind of organisation is best-placed to carry out conflict prevention and resolution - the UN, regional or sub-regional organisations or NGOs. An either-or approach, however, is not very helpful. What is needed is careful consideration of the comparative advantage of each and how they could work together more effectively to achieve a more strategic partnership. A brief review of the advantages and disadvantages should help to illustrate this point.
The United Nations
As the only global inter-governmental organisation whose function is the peaceful settlement of disputes, the UN has a number of potential advantages. One is that all of its members have agreed to resolve their disputes peacefully, to respect human rights, to work for social and economic justice, to practice tolerance, and to live together in peace. Because some regions do not have regional organisations, and because a number of states that are UN member do not belong to any regional organisation, the coverage of the UN is greater than that of regional organisations.
A second advantage is that the UN provides the most comprehensive dispute settlement system available, with a full range of organs (the Secretary-General, the International Court of Justice and the Security Council) and a wide array of methods (from good offices through peace keeping and peace enforcement). This system embodies three distinct approaches to dispute settlement - an interest-based approach; a rights-based approach; and a power-based approach, with each corresponding roughly to the organs of the United Nations - good offices of the Secretary-General and his Special Representatives representing the organisation's interest-based approach; the International Court of Justice and the UN human rights machinery representing its rights-based approach; and the Security Council and its potential responses under Chapter VII representing its power-based approach.
The power-based instruments, however, are sometimes a double-edge sword. In some cases, they encourage members to abide by their obligation to resolve their disputes peacefully, but in others, they may actually discourage states from availing themselves of other parts of the system. For example, members may not use the Secretary-General's good offices because they are worried that the Security Council might become involved. However, it is not only the Security Council's power-based instruments which are of concern, but also the Council's Great Power privileges (e.g., permanent membership and the veto) and perceived lack of adequate representation. Some member states also feel that the Security Council acts inconsistently and in the self-interest of its permanent members.
Another factor is that the basic medium of discourse and action within the UN system is that of governments. The advantage is that the various activities of the United Nations constantly put pressure on governments to conform to international norms. But because governments have bilateral and multilateral relationships outside the UN system, they also bring political baggage to their interactions within the UN, which can lead to political trade-offs against principles of the Charter, and to inconsistent decision-making, motivated by national or coalitional interests rather than 'the greater good'.
Another drawback is that the UN remains largely focused on crisis management rather than on conflict prevention. Although it has improved its collection and analysis of information about potential problems, there is still no effective mechanism for early assistance in conflict prevention. The number of Special and Personal Representatives and Envoys of the Secretary-General has increased in recent years, but most are still engaged after a conflict has erupted (i.e., to carry out peace making and peace keeping) rather than for conflict prevention.
In spite of these problems, the UN has more institutional experience than any other organisation in attempting to prevent and resolve conflict. Its human and financial resources, although small in relation to its enormous mandate, are considerably greater than those of regional or non-governmental organisations. In theory, however, the UN should be able to develop a more proactive, quiet approach to conflict prevention, which could gradually win the confidence of its members.
Regional organisations
Chapter VIII of the UN Charter not only includes regional organisations and arrangements as part of the UN system, but also explicitly encourages their development in furthering the aims of the Charter. Like the UN, however, regional organisations have advantages and disadvantages. One advantage is that they are likely to be familiar with the actors in a dispute, as well as with the situation on the ground and how it is developing. Proximity itself can make a situation more salient. Neighbours are likely to take a greater interest in conflict prevention in an adjacent state if they fear that
fighting could spread or result in uncontrolled flows of arms or refugees through their territory. On the other hand, neighbours sometimes have a vested interest in a dispute, such as when members of an aggrieved group in a neighbouring state are ethnic 'kin'.
In terms of long-term conflict prevention and resolution, regional organisations can apply even more pressure than the United Nations because of the importance of regional relationships. Regional politics, however, sometimes play a less-helpful role. Regional cleavages can cause some governments to favour one side while other governments favour the other side, which can widen a dispute. Regional hegemonies can also use their weight to unduly influence decision-making within the organisation.
Of course, similarity of norms and values among states in a region and a low level of conflict within a regional organisation may promote consensus and overcome such problems. However, regional norms and values can sometimes evolve in a manner that deviates from universal norms. In certain instances, for example, a majority of governments might agree to condone or overlook certain abuses by a member state in the interests of regional harmony.
Finally, most regional organisations have even more meagre human and financial resources than the UN, which necessarily limits their reach and effectiveness.
The two regional organisations which have been working the hardest on developing a capacity in conflict prevention are the OAU and the OSCE. Since the OAU Mechanism on Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution will be dealt with elsewhere in this book, the section below will briefly review the approach taken by the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, since this represents the most developed regional mechanism for preventive diplomacy to date.
The High Commissioner offers assistance to OSCE participating states in preventing conflict based on minority issues. Using a proactive, quiet approach, he visits countries where he has concerns, and through discussions with all concerned, seeks to understand the basis for minority grievances, and then to offer specific recommendations to governments for changes to legislation, regulation or practice, which can effectively address these grievances. He also provides advice on how to reduce tension and carry out structural reform, including how to establish an ongoing process of dialogue within societies, through the creation of mechanisms, such as ombudsmen, special offices for minority questions, and national commissions on ethnic and language questions.
The High Commissioner's informal, quiet approach, which typically does not involve either 'early warning' or formal mediation, overcomes the traditional opposition of governments to preventive diplomacy within states, since it avoids 'internationalising' the problem and bypasses governments' concern over recognising and legitimising leaders of disaffected minority movements. As the government is never required to sit down at the table with the leaders of these groups, it does not have to formally recognise them. It is simply asked to listen to and consider seriously the suggestions of the High Commissioner. In most of the cases he has dealt with, governments have listened to his advice and implemented the necessary reforms to ameliorate ethnic tensions, thus avoiding violent conflict. The High Commissioner has operated since 1992 and his success demonstrates that even having one person of knowledge, stature and skill, carrying out preventive diplomacy on a daily basis can be cost-effective. Moreover, the worl
d's most active preventive diplomacy mechanism operates with a staff of only seven advisers and a budget of just over one million dollars. Certainly, this model demonstrates that preventive diplomacy is possible and suggests that the UN or other regional organisations might consider how they could adopt such a mechanism to their own needs.
Non-Governmental Organisations
Conflict resolution NGOs tend to be less constrained than Inter-Governmental Organisations (IGOs) in being able to relate freely to the non-governmental parties involved in a dispute (although governments sometimes discourage such dialogue). They sometimes, however, also operate at the official level as third party intermediaries, as Sant' Egidio did in Mozambique, and as the FAFO Institute for Applied Social Science did with the Oslo Peace Process. Other NGOs work at the level of Track Two Diplomacy, bringing together, in an unofficial capacity, influential members of the policy-making community or those who have other forms of access to decision-makers for 'problem-solving workshops'. A limited number of NGOs, such as The Carter Center and its International Negotiation Network, are also working in the realm of 'Track One and a Half', finding a path between official and unofficial approaches.
With their work in the field, many NGOs (including churches and women's groups) have the ability to bring about conflict resolution and reconciliation at the community level, as various organisations are currently attempting to do in South Africa. NGOs and scholarly institutions within civil society have also been actively studying and disseminating knowledge about conflict prevention and resolution, helping IGOs develop their capacity and even evaluating IGO action and proposing reform.
Another advantage of NGOs is that they can take many forms and play many roles. Their multidimensional character and flexibility allow them to highlight specific problems and work on issues in ways that IGOs usually cannot. Local NGOs and those that work extensively in the field are often more aware than IGOs of the root causes of problems. In some cases, however, they do not have the same face validity with governments as IGOs and the lack of accreditation for NGOs and the possibility of their acting inappropriately remain as problems. Finally, NGOs are often even more resource-poor than the UN or regional organisations and are usually dependent entirely on voluntary contributions, making their staying power more tenuous.
Complementarity of the three models
Given the respective advantages and disadvantages described above, the potential exists for the formation of a more strategic coalition of actors, whose work could complement and augment one another. Indeed, cooperation between the UN, regional organisations and NGOs has begun to increase.
A number of cooperative agreements have been signed between the UN and regional organisations and three meetings have taken place over the last five years between the Secretaries-General of the UN and regional organisations (followed recently by one meeting at the middle level) from which recommendations for greater cooperation have emerged. In some cases, UN staff members already regularly attend important meetings of regional organisations and vice versa.
The UN and some regional organisations have also agreed upon a division of responsibility, with one organisation taking the lead in some instances and the other in other cases. In a few situations, the UN and regional organisations have organised joint peace missions or jointly appointed Special Representatives. Recently, a senior UN political officer was posted to Addis to coordinate with OAU Headquarters to ensure greater communication.
In 1998, a meeting hosted by the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Canadian International Development Center and coorganised by UNITAR, the Carnegie Commission for Preventing Deadly Conflict and the International Peace Academy (IPA) brought together for the first time those working in conflict prevention from the UN, regional organisations, and NGOs to share their developing ideas and to discuss obstacles and outcomes. A Visiting Fellowship Programme is now being planned to allow those working in conflict prevention to visit one another's institutions to promote mutual learning about different approaches.
The International Peace Academy, through its Vienna and New York Seminars, and UNITAR and IPA jointly, through their Fellowship Programme in Peacemaking and Preventive Diplomacy and UNITAR's Senior Seminar in Peacemaking and Preventive Diplomacy, bring together UN staff, personnel from regional organisations and conflict resolution NGOs and scholars to develop and refine the practice of conflict prevention and resolution.
Also, over the past few years, several NGOs have played an important role as consultants to regional organisations. The International Peace Academy has, for example, played a major part in helping the OAU develop its Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution by hosting a number of strategic meetings to stimulate creative thinking and policy development within the OAU. The Council for Security Cooperation in the Asian-Pacific Region (a coalition of academic institutions) has been working closely with ASEAN, to assist in policy development for the ASEAN Regional Forum, including its approach to conflict prevention.
However, in spite of these promising developments, many problems still exist between the UN, regional organisations and NGOs and, all too often, these organisations still do not coordinate properly, occasionally even appearing to actively obstruct one another. A problem of diffusion of responsibility also sometimes occurs, when the UN Security Council believes a situation should be handled by the regional organisation and the regional organisation abdicates responsibility to the UN. Other times, two or more actors become involved in an uncoordinated manner and work at cross-purposes. Equally problematic are bureaucratic jealousies and inter-institutional rivalries, which can plague efforts at coordination, exacerbate problems and waste time.
Providing more effective regional assistance
Potentially, all three kinds of organisations could be substantially developed in terms of conflict prevention and a much more coordinated approach adopted. Ideally, the advantages and disadvantages of each should be carefully considered in every situation and organisations should work cooperatively, delineating how tasks should be divided, and how work should be integrated. Such a multilayered approach will require careful coordination, which would be facilitated by proximity.
One way to expand and build on the emerging efforts would be for regional organisations and the UN to join together in a closer partnership to provide assistance in conflict prevention at a regional level, in cooperation with local and international conflict resolution NGOs. Elsewhere (in my book Sustainable Peace: The Role of the UN and Regional Organisations in Preventing Conflict), I have provided a detailed discussion on how UN Regional Centres for Sustainable Peace could be established (as an extension of the Department of Political Affairs to the regional level) to provide a conflict prevention mechanism that would build a strategic partnership to provide assistance in dispute resolution and good governance aimed at preventing conflict.
Such Centres would need small teams of expert staff to provide full-time quiet assistance in conflict prevention and good governance to those wishing to avail themselves of it - following the example set by the OSCE High Commissioner and the OSCE Office for Human Rights and Democratic Institutions.
Expert knowledge and skill would be fundamental to the work of these programs. Senior staff, with specialist knowledge and experience in dispute settlement and governance, would be required, along with regional or country experts, who are well-versed in the cultural, historical and political perspectives of actors in the region.
Regional Centres would also maintain close cooperation with the relevant regional or sub-regional organisation. Working together would allow both organisations to pool their expertise, use their comparative advantages and be better informed about individual situations, as well as about the overall causes of conflict within a region. A joint approach would also provide an opportunity to share responsibility and truly coordinate activities.
Further, UN Centres could liaise closely with conflict resolution and governance NGOs, as well as with research institutions and think tanks in the region, to extend their knowledge-base and reach into all levels of civil society. This would ensure that learning proceeds in both directions - i.e., bottom-up as well as top-down - so that the constructive ideas of those at all levels are heard and incorporated into solutions which are acceptable and well-tailored to local concerns, culture and circumstances. Equally important would be the horizontal transfer of knowledge and experience within each region. Those within the region who have found solutions to their local problems or have developed relatively successful models for good governance could be tapped to assist others in this endeavour.
NGOs with appropriate expertise in conflict resolution could help to provide assistance in dispute resolution at the community level - training local actors in problem solving and establishing local fora for dialogue. NGOs and other civil society groups could keep the Centres informed of local issues which might need other kinds of attention.
High profile individuals with the necessary status and political expertise could be used to extend the Centres' influence upward into the highest levels of government by convening meetings between decision-makers and regional and international scholars to identify and analyse emerging or existing regional or sub-regional problems, and to consider a range of possible solutions. Such individuals could also work quietly, behind-the-scenes, with government leaders, to urge them to move in the direction of addressing minority concerns and providing good governance.
Strategic cooperation between the UN, regional and sub-regional organisations and NGOs could also be expected to have a synergetic effect. Increasing resources for conflict prevention and shifting the focus to a more preventive, assistance approach could go a long way to helping member states of the UN and regional organisations work more effectively to ameliorate the many existing and potential conflicts besetting all regions of the world.