Africa faces many challenges in the years ahead. Western Sahara, Ethiopia-Eritrea, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Guinea-Bissau, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Burundi and Angola will most likely all be part of the list of countries attracting the attention of international conflict management practitioners over the next few years. When contemplating these challenges, a number of questions come to mind:

Perhaps one of the most difficult challenges at the turn of the century is the need to redefine the concept of ‘international peace and security’. What is considered to be domestic concerns from the outset — politically, economically socially or environmentally — may have considerable regional and international impact, also from a security point of view. Among the key areas that the UN and its member states have to address, are the questions of intervention, especially the role of the UN Security Council, the need for early action and prevention, and the promotion of human rights.

Ten years ago when the Berlin Wall was finally torn down, a whole world welcomed the new opportunities for international peace support. Without the bipolar struggle for power and influence, which often led to a policy of blocking decisions on international action in conflict areas, great expectations arose for a new and more efficient role for the UN in this area. Perhaps most of those concerned at the time overlooked the fact that new types of threats and risks to peace and security constituted the other side of the coin.

The end of the Cold War gradually made it possible for democracy to make new conquests, but it also caused former satellite states and new-born democracies to erupt into conflict and civil wars. The long awaited freedom and accumulated needs for civil rights, as well as for new goods and services, brought about expectations of immediate results and put tremendous pressures on the political leadership of these nations.

Sources of conflict — economic, ethnic and religious — that were suppressed for a long time, but not always forgotten, suddenly surfaced and had free scope. They were sometimes severely exploited by unscrupulous political leaders and factions fighting for power. A reign of terror against civilians and, ultimately, the complete breakdown of states have too often been the results.

The borderline between civil wars and international conflicts is often very thin. One example will suffice: when the people of Rwanda became victims of genocide, vast refugee flows into neighbouring countries were produced. Refugees and soldiers resided in the same camps, offensives were carried out across the border and the conflict became regionalised.

Peacekeeping in its traditional sense has become a well-known science. With the consent of the parties, an international military presence to monitor borders, cease-fires and demilitarised buffer-zones was the standard recipe that quite often served its purpose. Over the years, the realisation grew that the same cure cannot continue to be prescribed for new kinds of diseases. During the last decade, new lessons about the complexity of peace support were learned — and much remain to be discovered. If member states of the UN aspire to act in accordance with the UN Charter when international peace and security are threatened, a significant effort will be required.

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF CURRENT CONFLICT?

It is clear that the nature of these new types of conflict has to be explored. The legal framework for international engagement in conflict areas must be discussed. What may start as a so-called internal conflict can easily spread across borders and jeopardise the stability of a whole region. A widened concept of security — human security — has gradually become accepted, meaning that the security of people and individuals — not only of nation-states — is positioned at the forefront of international concern. It must be acknowledged that different kinds of conflicts require different kind of responses. The international instruments at hand — sometimes referred to as a ‘toolbox’ — must therefore be further developed. The root causes of conflict should be considered in-depth, while still continuing to enhance the capability to address the symptoms.

A broader approach has to be adopted in developing the concept of international peace support. Many improvements have been made both at the global and regional level, but perhaps too much emphasis has been placed on finetuning the traditional means of peacekeeping. Instead of focusing on the causes of conflicts, and the complex issue of supporting democratic values and institution-building in order to prevent tensions leading to violent conflicts, the inclination is to improve further what is already working fairly well.

This does not mean that the international community should be totally content with the instruments presently available for acute crisis management. The point has been reached in international politics where it is apparent that crisis management cannot be an area separated from long-term economic, social and democratic development.

A number of violent conflicts figure prominently at present on the international agenda, all tragic in their consequences, while at the same time very different from each other in background and future prospects of reconciliation. East Timor, Kosovo, Bosnia, Georgia, the DRC, Sudan, Colombia, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka could be mentioned to exemplify a few unresolved conflicts that — at least at the outset — were considered to be internal conflicts.

Interstate tensions — Ethiopia-Eritrea, India-Pakistan, and others — underline the need for improving the total arsenal of instruments for peace support in its widest sense.

CONCEPTS OF PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION IN THE LIGHT OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE UN

It should always be underlined that the main responsibility for conflict resolution rests with the parties to a dispute and the national leaders. International law makes every state responsible for its international behaviour. States should also be expected to account for their internal actions. They often have major external consequences. Sovereignty should stand for responsibility and accountability. Lasting peace cannot be imposed. Reconciliation must grow from within.

But when a stage of intervention is reached, only the UN can give the necessary legitimacy. The alternative to a UN-based intervention may well be anarchy and indeed lead to a situation where smaller states are left at the whim of larger ones acting unilaterally or in circles of mutual interest. The Secretary-General has tried to formulate the future direction with regard to human security. Sweden’s thoughts coincide with those of the Secretary-General. The best possible prevention is to ensure a life of dignity for people. The eradication of poverty, relief of the debt burden, and the promotion of democracy are all essential measures in this regard.

In other words, the international community must improve its ability to address the root causes of conflict, optimally leading to the point where a violent conflict will never arise. This, in turn, is one of the key problems with preventive measures. They seldom make the headlines, they may rarely be visible and the causal connection between preventive measures and the absence of a conflict will not always be evident.

There is a clear trend currently for national sovereignty to be questioned as an absolute principle, and at the same time, the notion of human security is gaining ground as a basis for international intervention. In short, the balance between the principle of non-intervention, the right to self-determination and the promotion of human rights is shifting, a trend that has to be developed further. A culture of prevention should be promoted and the whole ladder of prevention, provided for in the UN Charter, should be considered and used whenever necessary.

Secretary-General Annan devoted much of his opening speech at the General Assembly in 1999 to the issue of state sovereignty, humanitarian intervention and prevention. He called attention to the fact that state sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined by the forces of globalisation and international co-operation. He points to the dilemma of the concept ‘humanitarian intervention’: on one side, the question of the legitimacy of an action taken by a regional institution without a UN mandate; on the other, the universally recognised imperative of halting gross and systematic violations of human rights with grave humanitarian consequences. He draws the conclusion that the core challenge to the Security Council and the UN as a whole in the next century will be to forge unity behind the principle that massive and systematic violations of human rights — wherever they occur — should not be allowed.

The absence of armed conflict does not equal lasting peace. Given the complex deliberations preceding the deployment of a multifunctional peace support mission, given the enormous costs of keeping huge forces for long periods of time, given the occasional lack of political will to commit resources — it is long overdue for the international community to try harder and more systematically to prevent violent conflicts. Like in the case of the heart-surgeon and the nutritionist, the money and attention are directed at the more spectacular field of work. But prevention is not only a method or technique, it is a policy choice with long-term implications.

The very essence of humanitarian action is prevention. It starts with preventing inhuman living conditions and includes measures, even during the course of a violent conflict, to prevent assaults on civilians, disproportionate violence, the brutal conduct of war, displacement, and more. In the latter context, two modalities of prevention are identified in UN Security Council Resolution 46/182, notably ‘temporary relief corridors’ and ‘days or zones of tranquillity’. These concepts serve preventive purposes and help to minimise human suffering. There is a need to continue to develop thinking on aspects of what can be termed ‘creating human space in a conflict situation’.

LESSONS LEARNED

Declaring safety zones, without the consent of the parties involved, can have dire consequences. The lessons from Srebrenica are chilling. During October 1999, a report of the Secretary-General on the events of Srebrenica was released. It is an interesting and highly self-critical assessment from which the following conclusions in the section from entitled ‘Lessons for the future’, have to be highlighted:

"There are occasions when Member States cannot achieve consensus on a particular response to active military conflicts, or do not have the will to pursue what many might consider to be an appropriate course of action. The first of the general lessons is that when peacekeeping operations are used as a substitute for such political consensus, they will likely fail ... But peacekeeping and war fighting are distinct activities which should not be mixed. Peacekeepers must never again be deployed into an environment in which there is no cease-fire or peace agreement. Peacekeepers must never again be told that they must use their peacekeeping tools — lightly armed soldiers in scattered positions — to impose the ill-defined wishes of the international community on one or another of the belligerents by military means. If the necessary resources are not provided — and the necessary political and moral judgements are not made — the job simply cannot be done."

One key challenge must be further efforts in preventive humanitarian diplomacy. There is a dilemma, however. On the one hand, it is imperative to put an end, at the earliest possible stage, to gross and massive human rights violations and other emergencies entailing grave humanitarian consequences. On the other, the integrity of the UN Charter must be safeguarded and the primary responsibility of the UN Security Council for international peace and security must be upheld.

This dilemma can only be avoided if the Security Council fulfils its role and deals effectively with upcoming crises. The earlier the council acts, the greater the chances that peaceful and less intruding measures will suffice. In Chapter VI, article 33 of the UN Charter, it is stated that "the parties to any dispute ... shall first of all seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice." Further up the ladder are measures such as targeted sanctions or preventive deployment of observers or troops.

Upholding the credibility of the Security Council is in the interest not only of the members of the Security Council, but also of the UN membership at large. Thus, all efforts should be made to use the Security Council as a forum for negotiations in order to avoid unnecessary threats of or the actual use of the veto, on the one hand, and unilateral action, on the other. There is no better alternative than the UN in preventing and, if needed, managing conflicts. But the UN alone cannot meet the needs and demands in this area. The co-operation between the UN and regional organisations has to be developed further.

Various actors need to interact and improve their respective capabilities to contribute to international peace and security. The UN Charter clearly recognises this potential and there are several examples of successful co-operation. However, it is important that the UN does not abdicate its primary responsibility in this area. Regional or subregional organisations or coalitions of the willing could all do a great job. At the same time, they may be regarded with scepticism by the belligerent parties if participating nations are perceived to be acting out of self-interest under the cover of regional peacekeeping.

Co-operation with regional actors is crucial, but complex, in today’s growing grey zone of conflicts — domestic in origin, but international in impact. They often involve neighbouring countries as recipients of refugees, weapons suppliers or even participants. In such situations, the UN must find a way of engaging regional actors in peaceful solutions which guarantee the legitimate security interests of all. When regional leadership is available, the role of the UN should be one of providing support and, when international military peace operations are needed, to authorise and monitor.

However, when regional leadership is lacking or sometimes inappropriate, the UN must be ready to lead. Experience also shows that the management of conflicts that are out of hand must be returned to the UN for eventual resolution.

THE AUTHORITY OF THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL

If the authority of the UN Security Council is considered, it must be acknowledged that Kosovo, Iraq and the United Nations Preventive Deployment Force (UNPREDEP) represent three situations where the credibility of the Security Council has been seriously questioned. For those who put their trust in the UN as the ultimate guarantor of the maintenance of peace and human dignity, and believe that the Council must carry out its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, this debate is a very serious one. It is surely realised that the Security Council may not be able to resolve all conflicts. But as members of the UN and as human beings, there is reason to expect that the Security Council, at all times, will manifest a serious effort to stop human suffering, resulting from threats to peace, no matter where they occur. As stated earlier, Security Council action does not necessarily mean the use of force.

The Security Council should be more transparent and open. This would contribute to the acceptance and legitimacy of its decisions. It should be able to hear the views of all relevant parties to a conflict without the implication of a political recognition. The involvement of humanitarian institutions in the Council’s deliberations would enhance the quality of its decisions. The humanitarian consequences of Security Council action should always be taken into consideration. This is particularly important when sanctions are imposed.

The most obvious alternative to the use of force is conflict prevention and early action. In fact, an intervention could be seen as a confirmation of failure of prevention. Member states, in particular the permanent members of the Security Council, must share information on conflict situations and early warning signals with the Secretariat. The Secretary-General should be invited to propose appropriate and timely action to the Security Council.

Early fact-finding missions to areas of potential conflict could help the Secretary-General to formulate such proposals. Academic institutions and non-governmental organisations could also be helpful in this regard. The Security Council should hold consultations on a regular basis on various regional situations. It should identify potential conflicts and possible measures to prevent them from erupting into violence. Good offices or the appointment of special representatives are concrete examples of such measures.

THE SWEDISH PROGRAMME OF ACTION

The Swedish government has adopted a programme of action to facilitate and contribute to the prevention of armed conflict. It is hoped that this action plan will stimulate a debate on how to change the focus from crisis management to early preventive action — in other words, to promote a culture of prevention.

The horrifying examples of human and material disaster in recent years — in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia and East Timor — are clear examples of the failure to take preventive measures to avoid violent conflicts. It cannot be claimed that the signs were unclear, or that early warnings could not be heard, that those issues and occurrences that ultimately led to mass killings and mental trauma for both victims and perpetrators passed by unseen. The fact that the international community did not find the ways and means to act in time should be deplored. There were evidently no political mechanisms and instruments available for early action to follow early warning. Or else, the political will and courage to do what was needed, were sorely lacking.

With a policy of prevention, better use can be made of institutions for international security and development. Tools could be designed for use in a manner proportional to the level of conflict. These could be applied through trade, economic assistance and political action. The focus should shift from crisis management to the provision of a quick response to early warning signals. This is a challenge that the Swedish government has accepted through its Action plan preventing violent conflict.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Few measures would be more important to prevent conflicts — within and between states — than the respect for human rights. Any regime violating human rights paves the way for crisis and armed conflict. The defence of human rights is a legitimate concern for the Security Council and the international community. When the rights of individuals are violated — wherever it happens — action should be taken. Still, disrespect for democracy and human rights are obvious in many parts of the world. The events in East Timor show how the will of the people can be totally ignored by armed thugs. In Kosovo, innocent civilians are attacked for belonging to a particular ethnic group.

Societies respecting human rights are more stable and peaceful. The rights laid down in the Universal declaration of human rights apply to all. The principle of non-discrimination is of particular and critical importance for individuals who belong to ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities or to indigenous peoples.

A powerful tool of deterrence has been the work of the tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. Another important example of conflict prevention is the recent adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, a milestone in the struggle against genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It is important to send yet another clear signal that the international community is determined to close the gap of impunity.

Long-term security is closely linked to sustainable development, and the eradication of poverty. Everyone wants and needs security, sustained development, prosperity and a life of dignity for this, as well as for future generations. To achieve this, the international community must unite around common basic values, building on respect for international law and human rights, democracy and social and economic justice.

Weak and unstable government structures have to be improved. Democracies seek security in co-operation with one another rather than through deterrence. Democratic cultures must therefore be supported in order to develop civil, open and pluralistic societies. Sound institutions interfacing with an organised civil society are critical for the capacity of a state to skillfully manage change. And change is part of the development of any society.

Post-conflict reconstruction and economic rehabilitation require a balancing act between the long-term needs of development and the more short-term demands of shoring up a fragile peace process. It is a delicate task to judge when it is safe for external actors to withdraw without risking the parties sliding back into war.

Sustainable peace and prosperity cannot be established by providing only short-term intervention measures in cases of violent conflict. On the other hand, long-term international aid does not guarantee a peaceful and irreversible positive development in the recipient country. Should the focus then increasingly be on supporting peace and security or sustainable development? It is not a matter of either/or. Peace, security, democracy, human rights, social justice, humanitarian relief and sustainable development are inseparable. Development and stability are two equally important foundations of society. And through prevention, containment and the settlement of violent conflicts, the possibilities are increased to develop economies that will prosper and ordinary people will be able to lead normal lives. Both areas have to be promoted as they are mutually reinforcing in promoting and supporting the well-being of the peoples of the world.