A South African Perspective on the Place of Peace Support Operations Within Broader Peace Missions
INTRODUCTION
In less than a decade, United Nations peace operations have evolved rapidly and in an ad hoc fashion, from classical peacekeeping (involving military interposition to monitor interstate cease-fire agreements) to complex multidimensional interventions where the military component is but one of many role players in an involved peace process. Each new peace operation now bears little resemblance to its predecessor, as the international community and regional organisations become involved in a succession of intrastate conflicts, each with its own unique demands and dynamics. Where the use of force was usually not a consideration for the earlier peacekeeping operations, the mandate to use some form of force has now become the rule rather than the exception in recent operations approved by the UN Security Council.
The rapid pace and unplanned nature of these developments have defied scholarly attempts to clearly explain an unambiguous concept for the new type of operations to practitioners. Widespread confusion has been created about the terminology and definitions used, and has resulted in different countries and organisations attaching different meanings to the various terms and definitions which have emerged. Moreover, terms such as `peacekeeping operations', `peace operations', `wider peacekeeping operations', `peace support operations', `peace missions', and more recently, `multifunctional peace operations', are being used interchangeably to define the overarching spectrum of activities related to UN involvement to prevent or settle international disputes in terms of Chapters VI, VII and VIII of the UN Charter.
If South Africa is to generate meaningful policy, strategy and doctrine for participation in peace operations, a clear understanding and mutual agreement on the exact meaning of key terms and definitions is of the utmost importance as a starting point. The aim of this article is simply to suggest a basic approach towards developing common understanding and agreement on the core definitions and terminology used in the process of conflict prevention, management and resolution, so that the policy process may proceed from a clear point of reference.
FROM PEACEKEEPING TO PEACE MISSIONS
As already mentioned, the nature of UN activities aimed at international conflict prevention, management and resolution have changed dramatically over the past decade. A radically altered post-Cold War security environment has seen the transformation (or mutation) of classical peacekeeping operations into complex multidimensional conflict management activities with a diplomatic/political focus, in which the military is but one of the many role players involved. Unfortunately, there was not a concurrent and adequate transformation of the terminology and definitions used to describe the changing nature of this activity. Rather, in the absence of any clear conceptual and semantic development, existing military terminology was largely retained.
Where new types of activity demanded description and nomenclature, the various role players each produced their own personal variations of the existing military terminology, rather than working towards a commonly acceptable solution to the problem. In the process, no clear semantic distinction has been made between the diplomatic/political and the military dimensions of international peace initiatives. One result is that the terms `peacekeeping operations', `peace operations', `wider peacekeeping operations', `peace support operations', `peace missions', and `multifunctional peace operations', are being used synonymously to describe the overarching spectrum of activities related to UN involvement in the prevention or resolution of conflicts.
Although each of the role players involved in `new generation peace operations' may know exactly what is meant when using self-generated terminology, there can be no guarantee that other role players (with their own set of definitions and terminology) will share this meaning. This opens the way for confusion which may result in misunderstanding and even conflict among people and organisations working in the field of conflict prevention, management and resolution. It must also lead to a general reduction in the productivity and effectiveness of international and regional efforts in this regard.
The synonymous use of the terms `mission' and `operation' further serves to confuse the issue. Although there is general consensus today that all measures aimed at conflict prevention, management and resolution are in essence political/diplomatic activities (with the military as one of the role players), the word `operation' immediately creates the perception of a military activity. The term `mission' on the other hand, seems to place emphasis on the political/diplomatic nature of the activity.
As all modern-day UN activities to prevent or settle international disputes, in essence, are political/diplomatic activities, the term `peace mission' would be an appropriate collective and overarching term to describe this activity. `Preventive diplomacy', `peacemaking', `peacekeeping', `peace enforcement' and `peacebuilding' are all diplomatic initiatives, and such a `peace mission' could have any one or all of these as its elements (See figure).
MILITARY SUPPORT TO PEACE MISSIONS
The term `peace support operations' was introduced by the British Army. It is now widely used (for example, in NATO doctrine) to cover `peacekeeping' and `peace enforcement' operations. The meaning has also been accepted by the UN as such. One may therefore presume that `support' refers to those military activities provided in support of political goals.
It is thus proposed that, whereas the term `peace mission' refers to all UN activities directed towards preventing or resolving conflict in a certain situation, the term `peace support operation' should be used to refer not only to peacekeeping and peace enforcement, but to all military activities in support of such a `peace mission'. `Peace support operations' could therefore be defined as all military activities in support of a `peace mission'. The term `peace support operation' will therefore also include military activities in support of pre-dominantly political activities such as `preventive diplomacy', `peacemaking' and `peacebuilding'.
Contrary to the misconception that `preventive diplomacy', `peace-making', `peacekeeping', `peace enforcement' and `peacebuilding' are all elements of `peace support operations', this conceptualisation clearly indicates that a `peace support operation' could in fact be an element of any or all of these activities.
Moreover, the term `doctrine' is rarely used within the civilian context. Below the level of political ideology, civilians usually prefer to refer to `procedures' for doing things. When using the term `doctrine', it is therefore important to realise that it refers to military doctrine, and that this doctrine will in fact only cover the military involvement in a `peace mission'. The military doctrine for `peace support operations' may be informed by a knowledge of the broader dimensions of peace missions, but it will not serve as a handbook for the conduct of a `peace mission'. Such doctrine would only cover the military activities in support of such an operation.
POLITICAL ELEMENTS OF PEACE MISSIONS
Preventive Diplomacy
`Preventive diplomacy' is primarily a political/diplomatic process, mandated under Chapter VI of the UN Charter in order to prevent disputes from developing between parties, or existing disputes from escalating into open conflict, or to limit the escalation of conflict when it occurs. Notwithstanding the fact that the military could be requested to provide limited support for efforts towards `preventive diplomacy' (transport, protection, etc.), soldiers should realise that this is not primarily a military responsibility. As `preventive diplomacy' forms part of the overall `peace mission', the military would not view it as being an integral part of `peace support operations'. Any military support to the process of `preventive diplomacy' (such as `preventive deployment'), however, will be executed as part of a `peace support operation' and it could therefore be seen as an element of `preventive diplomacy'.
Peacemaking
`Peacemaking' is also primarily a diplomatic process/activity which is conducted with the aim of bringing hostile parties to a negotiated agreement through peaceful means. This process, also mandated under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, could include activities such as the brokering of cease-fire agreements or more comprehensive peace accords. Again, military support (transport, protection, etc.) could be requested to support the diplomatic process. However, as in the case of `preventive diplomacy', `peacemaking' is not primarily a military responsibility. Similarly, `peacemaking' forms part of the overall `peace mission' and would not be regarded by the military as being an element of `peace support operations'. Any military support to the process of `peacemaking', however, will be executed as part of `peace support operations'. `Peace support operations' could therefore be seen to be a possible element of `peacemaking'.
Peacekeeping Operations
`Peacekeeping operations' describe the activities of the United Nations in the field, normally involving military and civilian personnel, in order to implement/monitor the implementation of agreements reached between belligerent parties. Such activities are also mandated under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, take place with the consent of the conflicting parties, and do not involve the use of force (other than in self-defence) by the peacekeeping force.
Traditionally, `peacekeeping operations' were conducted mainly by military forces, with the monitoring of cease-fire agreements and the possible interpositioning between conflicting parties to prevent a re-escalation of conflict, as their typical tasks. In such cases, the force commander was responsible directly to the UN Secretary-General for the execution of the operation. Modern-day `peacekeeping operations', however, are multidimensional in nature, and involve a significant civilian component. With the civilian component being responsible for tasks such as assisting with the restoration of law and order, monitoring/assistance with elections, repair and maintenance of infrastructure, and others, the military forms but one of many role players in the peacekeeping process.
Contemporary peacekeeping is in essence a diplomatic/political activity and therefore the UN Secretary-General will usually appoint a civilian as his special representative (SRSG) to take charge of such a mission. The military force commander is clearly subordinate to the SRSG, and all military tasks will be performed as part of the overarching plan for the `peace mission'. While it is important for the military to be aware of the tasks/duties and responsibilities of the other role players, military doctrine should be focused on the tasks and procedures that will be required from the military. These military activities would form part of `peace support operations', while activities of the large civilian involvement would form part of the greater `peace mission', but lie outside the realm of `peace support operations'.
Peace Enforcement
`Peace enforcement' describes activities where, in terms of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the Security Council deems it necessary to use armed force to maintain or restore international peace and security in situations where the peace is threatened, where a breach of the peace occurs, or where there is an act of aggression. The use of armed force will only be authorised when all other peaceful means have failed.
Although `peace enforcement' still forms part of the overall political/diplomatic process (the `peace mission'), the military will obviously play a leading role in the process of achieving set military objectives (objectives determined and authorised by the UNSC). Again, it is important for the military to acknowledge/have knowledge of the role of other players in the `peace mission', and military doctrine should be focused on the tasks that will be required from the military. As in the case of peacekeeping operations, these military tasks would form part of `peace support operations' while the endeavours of civilian role-players to restore peace would form part of the greater `peace mission'.
Peacebuilding
`Peacebuilding' may occur at any stage in the conflict cycle, but it is critical in the aftermath of a conflict. Peacebuilding includes activities such as the identification and support of measures and structures which will promote peace and build trust, and the facilitation of interaction among former enemies in order to prevent a relapse into conflict. In essence, `peacebuilding' is mainly a diplomatic/developmental process. Although the military might be requested to support this process, `peacebuilding' does not constitute a military operation in the true sense of the word. It is important that the military involved in `peace missions' will have knowledge of the role of the different role-players within the `peacebuilding' process, but as in the case of `preventive diplomacy' and `peacemaking', `peacebuilding' is not a military responsibility. `Peacebuilding' is therefore an element of `peace missions' and not of `peace support operations'. Therefore, from a military point of view, any military support to the process of `peace building' will be part of `peace support operations', while `peace support operations' may, in turn, be an element of `peacebuilding'.
THE HUMANITARIAN DIMENSION
The UN Security Council is charged with the responsibility to maintain international peace and security hitherto largely in terms of the security of member states. With the increasing recognition of the importance of human security over state security, it is unavoidable that humanitarian concerns will also be prominent in contemporary `peace missions'. Indeed, many of the civilian actors in `peace missions' will be attending to humanitarian concerns, and their work may be motivated by a singular desire to alleviate human suffering, rather than to contribute to the overall peace process. The military, when engaged in `peace support operations' should therefore be aware of the humanitarian dimension and of the role of actors such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the World Food Programme, and a variety of non-government organisations working in the humanitarian field.
It has also been felt that the military has a distinct role to play in the conduct of `humanitarian operations', defined as operations conducted to relieve human suffering, especially in circumstances where responsible authorities in the area are unable, or possibly unwilling, to provide adequate service support to the population. It was also thought that humanitarian operations may be conducted in the context of another type of peace support operation, or as a completely independent task. However, the latter idea would add further confusion to the military role, by creating a discrete category of military operations other than war which may or may not be part of a peace mission. It would also distort modalities for military involvement in disaster relief operations, which are conducted in response to God-made crises, and are beyond the realm of Security Council action and associated `peace missions'.
This is entirely unnecessary, if one considers the responsibility of the United Nations for maintaining international peace and security, and one defines security in terms of both state and human security. To define a particular intervention by the international community as a `humanitarian operation' would be to confuse short term motives with longer term goals. It is therefore both possible and desirable to place humanitarian assistance (provided in response to the effects of armed conflict) squarely within the ambit of `peace missions' whether it is provided within the context of `preventive diplomacy', `peacemaking', `peacekeeping', `peace enforcement', or `peacebuilding'. In fact, the humanitarian dimension should rightly underlie all of the above processes. Sometimes, the humanitarian dimension may well dominate the thinking and decision-making of those charged with the maintenance of international peace and security, and this may best be illustrated by incorporating it across all the elements of a `peace mission'.
In as far as the military provides humanitarian assistance, or supports its provision, this too must be seen as that part of `peace support operations' which falls within the humanitarian dimension that underlies all `peace missions'.
CONCLUSION
The range and complexity of the activities mentioned above indicate an underlying and urgent need to formalise the structures and procedures for the conduct of future `peace missions'. Such structures and procedures, if available, would be a valuable reference for military doctrine and would be invaluable for the training of both civilians and military forces for participation in such `peace missions'. It is, however, difficult for meaningful structures and procedures to emerge from the current semantic fog.
It is also important to realise that the various elements of a `peace mission' cannot be seen to be entirely separate activities, and that they do not always follow each other in a chronological order. Although it would seem logical for the peace process to proceed through the stages of `preventive diplomacy', `peacemaking', `peacekeeping', `peace enforcement' and `peacebuilding', experience has shown that this is rarely the case. The abovementioned activities are all `tools' in the process of conflict prevention, management and resolution, and their application may overlap to the point where they all run concurrently at a given point in time. Although this might serve to confuse the issue, matters are simplified if we distinguish between civilian and military responsibilities throughout.
It is hoped that the distinction suggested here between the terms `peace mission' and `peace support operation' will assist in such efforts, and that this terminology will eventually find universal acceptance among those involved in conflict prevention, manage-ment and resolution.
ENDNOTES
This article is published under the auspices of the Training for Peace project at ISS, which is sponsored by the Royal Norwegian Government and conducted in conjunction with the Norwegian Institute for International Affairs (NUPI).
- Colonel A J Rossouw is presently Senior Staff Officer Operations Advice at the Joint Operations Division, SA National Defence Force Headquarters. He writes in his personal capacity, and his views do not represent official Department of Defence policy.
|
|
