Contributions from
the Column
Focus

The dilemma of having to decide fast

Security understood correctly

Why speed matters

Dilemmas of fighting drugs

Complementing military efforts


02/2005 		 

Why speed matters

The intervention of international forces in a crisis area raises hopes for a brighter future. If the people affected do not see tangible results soon, they are likely to become disappointed and cynical. This will be all the more so if donor conferences have pledged large sums of aid. The greatest challenge for the intervening troops and their civilian partner organisations is that they have to jump-start the entire society. Providing some sense of security is not enough, the state and its service provision must be made operational again. The longer this takes, the more likely a new downward spiral into violence becomes.


[ By Clare Harkin ]

The deployment of international military forces to a conflict environment usually heralds the beginning of a transition process for a population long affected by violence, human rights abuse and deprivation. The first few months of any intervention are critical to creating the conditions, which will support long term political, economic and social development. Physical security is vital – but security alone will achieve little of permanent benefit, and may even over time become a destabilising factor in its own right. Tangible signs that things are getting better and that society is beginning to function again are of as much importance.

The signing of an accord or peace agreement does not make a conflict environment safe – physical and human security remain at risk. Those with a vested interest in conflict may continue to provoke violence. Banditry and organised crime may flourish rather than flag. If command, control and communication mechanisms do not work efficiently, news of a peace accord may not reach all combatants. Nor will all combatants be willing to comply with the terms of an agreement brokered some way from them. And the proliferation of small arms, which are readily available to all and serve as the only means of family protection, reinforces an already insecure situation.

The population will be traumatised having experienced brutality, fear, poverty, and hunger. All will have suffered but in particular those least able to defend and protect themselves – women, the elderly and children. For women especially, the spectre, and too often reality, of HIV/AIDS exists. Life has become a matter of survival with most experiencing a feeling of powerlessness and a loss of control over their own destinies. This, in itself, may have propelled some into militias as a means of survival and establishing an identity and a voice. More commonly perhaps, it will have hampered the ability of most to consider long-term perspectives, to take decisions and to accept responsibility for the future.


Basic services

Invariably conflict will have affected, to a greater or lesser extent, the governance of the country concerned. The Civil Service may no longer be functioning and national revenue collection a thing of the past. As a consequence, basic services may no longer be provided – or only provided on an inequitable basis. War may have directly hit infrastructure facilities leading to a further reduction in basic service provision – most importantly water and power and as transport routes for emergency provision. Particularly in an immediate post conflict situation, political power and local government administration may be in the hands of those with weapons rather than those with ability and popular legitimacy.

Such conditions will not only affect the rapid resumption of effective government – difficult enough anyway – but may also maintain a system of discriminatory access to services, employment and other opportunities. While this may be expedient in the short run, the long-term consequences are detrimental to creating a state responsive to the needs of all its citizens. And, given that conflicts increasingly transcend national borders, unrepresentative dominance by any one group in a specific area is likely to contribute to tensions throughout the geographical region.

In spite of all these challenges, news of a peace accord or settlement will have fostered high expectations and hope for the future in the bulk of the affected population. But only few people will actually be aware of the terms of any agreement and fewer still consulted. Therefore, confusion and uncertainty will remain and provide fertile ground for disinformation. This is the volatile situation into which international military forces and their counterpart civilian colleagues deploy. Hopes are high – life will improve. The big question is: how quickly? If progress remains slow, the legitimacy and credibility of the intervention forces will be undermined.

This is not just an issue of humanitarian relief. All aspects of social life have to be addressed, ranging from, first and foremost, the establishment of law and order, to the rehabilitation of utilities and infrastructure, economic regeneration and job creation, renewed provision of social safety nets and services, and credible systems of information.

In the first instance much will depend on the mandate of intervening forces and their civilian partner organisations and how their status relates to the indigenous authorities (if the latter are functioning at all). The mandate will have been shaped by the terms of the peace agreement (if there is any) and the extent to which those responsible for its implementation have been involved. Deciding these matters should not be left to warring factions, political leaders and diplomatic negotiators alone. Local, national and – potentially – regional actors representing civil society, human rights, development and reconciliation actors should be included. And, even if contrary to cultural norms, women should be represented in defining the terms of a peace agreement and how it is to be implemented.

Issues relating to the security sector should be high on the agenda however difficult reaching consensus may be. The status of military forces, internal security, policing, border and intelligence services has to be reconciled with the new priorities of the state. They must be appropriate to the tasks of maintaining the sovereignty of the state from external aggression and protecting the rights of individual citizens. They must be affordable given the competing priorities of the country. Budgetary constraints are, of course, especially tough for any society emerging from conflict because health, education and basic social services have been badly neglected for too long. All security forces must become accountable to the state, which requires the establishment of effective civilian oversight mechanisms including the media, government, civil society and relevant political bodies. Such a process takes time. But any settlement that does not foster understanding and agreement, at least in principle, from the main protagonists, that this is a necessary step for future stability of the state, must surely question the commitment of those actors. Of immediate importance are plans for the establishment of a Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (DDR) programme but again this has to be designed within a comprehensive strategy.

Assuming that a formal agreement has been reached, international troops have an important role to play in the disarmament and demobilisation process. But first those carrying arms must be reassured that neither they, nor any communities they represent, are made more vulnerable. This can only be achieved if the disarmament process is seen and believed to be neutral. Disarmament and demobilisation must be matched with an effective reconciliation and reintegration process. This is vital. Even militias have a measure of command and control. To disband such groups without providing a new sense of identity and acceptability and some alternative livelihood only means releasing young, physically healthy men into an environment where weapons, but little else, are available.

Security and the provision of law and order, including the judiciary and prison service, are the most obvious priorities but that does not mean that the other sectors do not merit the same attention. Systems to regulate and restore services must be put in place rapidly – for example issues such as currency regulation, property rights, customs and border control have to be established and promulgated. Along with the physical rehabilitation of schools, clinics, utilities, the institutional processes supporting those need also to be put in place. While it is obviously true that it hardly makes sense to repair a school or a hospital if there is no security to allow access, it is also self-evident that physical infrastructure in itself is useless without a system for paying staff, funding the heating of the premises and the supply of the materials necessary. And while economic growth is vital to restoring livelihoods and dignity (and potentially curbing opportunistic crime), one must also pay attention to issues of equality that may have fuelled the conflict in the first place.


Holistic approach

There is much to be done but it needs to be approached in a holistic way – with all actors responding in a coordinated manner. This may or may not include humanitarian actors who must maintain independence of action and allocation of assistance based on need alone. Nonetheless, it is important to build links, however discretely, between humanitarian organisations, military forces, politicians and development actors. Otherwise, there will never be a comprehensive assessment, which identifies and addresses assistance requirements coherently. However, without the rapid restoration of public administration and governance systems, run by the indigenous population but with support from the international community, progress will remain slow. And slow progress implies a growing risk of mission failure.

Prolonged delays will dash expectations and lead to frustration. The legitimacy of the international presence will come into question. This is particularly true when locals have heard of donor conferences pledging millions of dollars, but see few tangible improvements. It is unlikely that the people affected will have detailed information or even have been involved in discussions regarding policy priorities. In the fragile setting of a post-conflict country, disappointment may also be manipulated or even orchestrated by those seeking to destabilise the situation in pursuit of their own interest. This, potentially coupled with a less than satisfactory disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration programme (encompassed within a wider process of social reconciliation and reintegration), may lead to heightened tension and, if not properly addressed, renewed violence.

Nevertheless, meeting violence with security measures alone is not a sensible option, as it will yield few positive results. More likely, a fortress mentality will set in – fostering a “them and us” situation and creating a downward security spiral. Once that dynamic sets in, international civilian workers will be forced to leave and military forces increasingly will have to become engaged in civilian activities, re-allocating resources from security duties. It is thus of fundamental importance that security and development actors, equipped with an understanding of, and respect for, a culture which is not their own, work in partnership to deliver both the physical and human security necessary for stability and for the country’s future political, economic and social growth.




Clare Harkin
is Senior Civil Military Affairs Adviser at the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development. She is writing here in a personal capacity expressing her individual views.
c-harkin@dfid.gov.uk