Document Library

Key Text A Review of Peace Operations: A Case for Change

Author: Confict, Security and Development Group
Date: 2003
Size: 61 pages (305 KB)

Access document Access full text: available online

Summary

In 2000, The Brahimi Report made recommendations for improving peace operations, but insufficient progress has taken place since. This synthesis report from the Conflict, Security and Development Group at Kings College London explores why this is the case. The report is based on a comprehensive review of three core peace operations in East Timor, Kosovo and Sierra Leone, as well as insights from ongoing operations in Afghanistan. It argues that whilst the continuing relevance of the Brahimi Report needs to be recognised, it does have limitations in light of developments on the ground.

There are important strategic and operational gaps between the Brahimi Report and the reality on the ground. These are identifiable in five key areas: (i) planning and process, (ii) public administration/governance, (iii) rule of law and post-conflict justice, (iv) the security sector and (v) the humanitarian-peacekeeping-development interface.

Whilst there are inherent difficulties in trying to generalise across different situations, 'lessons learned' need to be captured to avoid constantly reinventing the wheel. Some of the key findings from the country studies are:

  • Many problems stem from incomplete plans or limited planning of responses. Local perspective and input is not given sufficient attention. There needs to be a balance between comprehensive planning and flexibility to learn and adjust during a mission.
  • Tensions exist between the UN's dual role as governor/public administrator and peacekeeper. Key obstacles to creating effective governance are the lack of sequenced institutional and lack of capacity building.
  • There is no coherent strategy for the development of rule-of-law institutions.
  • There is a lack of understanding of the complexities of security sector reform, including insufficient establishment of coherent law and order or police training. Disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration processes need to be reviewed in context.
  • Often, humanitarian and development issues need to be addressed concurrently, leading to tensions in delivery.
  • A balance needs to be stuck between improved planning and sufficient flexibility for political creativity.

Recommendations made are aimed at strengthening capacity rather than at structural changes:

  • The UN Secretariat and Department of Peace-keeping Operations should strengthen their strategic planning capacity, making it context-driven and drawing on a wide range of expertise. Options include a dedicated strategic planning unit or mandate implementation team, an 'Inspectorate System' and a 'Lessons Learned Unit'. Exit strategies need to be more clearly planned and communicated.
  • Improved organisational and management structures in missions are critical. Greater technical expertise is needed to ensure capacity building. Greater understanding of local social structures and politics is vital.
  • A more robust, co-ordinated approach to the justice sector must be a priority, which includes attention to disputes over the use, control and ownership of land and property.
  • A new security culture is necessary, defying bureaucratic compartmentalisation, and sensitive to public opinion. Improved understanding of a mission's principal challenges and objectives between troop-contributing countries, permanent members of the UN Security Council and the UN Secretariat is needed.
  • Country economic development must feature in humanitarian relief phases, including participatory strategic planning. Military forces must have explicit mandates encompassing core duties to foster security and protect civilians.
  • Further research is necessary into funding implications and the political, cultural and economic legacy that a peace operation should leave. A focus on peace operations in a regional or 'transnational' context is also needed.

Access document Access full text: available online

Source: Conflict, Security and Development Group (CSDG), 2003, 'A Review of Peace Operations: a Case for Change', Confict, Security and Development Group, Kings College, London
Author: Conflict, Security and Development Group, King’s College London (CSDG), http://csdg.kcl.ac.uk/index.html


 
© 2006 University of Birmingham. Some portions © other authors. enquiries@gsdrc.org www.gsdrc.org       Feedback : Disclaimer