Editorial


4/2004		  

When soldiers secure ceasefires

French and US troops are keeping the peace on the streets of Haiti. It is good to see two allies cooperating closely again after their governments quarrelled bitterly over Iraq. But it is irritating to see assistance rushed in by countries whose historical record is rather one of blocking than helping Haiti’s development. And it is depressing to watch yet another state become unable to maintain a credible monopoly of force, yet another society brought to the brink of violence and chaos, yet more foreign soldiers needed to secure law and order. Once again, the question must be raised whether development policy should have done more. Perhaps the government of elected president Bertrand Aristide would not have sunk into the quagmire of corruption and violence, if only it had met with more support (Comment, Norbert Glaser, p. 141).

Haiti is, of course, not the only case of a failed state. The phenomenon has become so familiar that it has made armed intervention with a United Nations mandate a standard instrument of international politics. Most Germans view the mounting significance of military approaches with unease. We have not forgotten the horrors of the Hitler regime and the Second World War. Nevertheless, the Social Democrats and Greens – two parties with pacifist roots – have broken with the taboo on German forces taking part in missions abroad. Accordingly, the Development Ministry has to define its stand on its interfaces with the Ministry of Defence (Interview with Minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, p. 144).

Sadly, Haiti is unlikely to be the last country pulled back from the brink of civil war by soldiers with a UN mandate. Within the United Nations, formal procedures are being developed for humanitarian interventions. The genocide in Rwanda 10 years ago, which the country’s legal system is still struggling to tackle (interview with law expert Gerd Hankel, p. 138), is one reason for the emergence of the UN rules. So far, soldiers on multilateral peace-assignments seem to be the only agents capable of preventing the escalation of violence. However, the UN policy is still not firmly established and needs more backing from the influential members of the international community – especially more support from the United States (Bastian Loges and Ulrich Menzel, p. 148).

But securing ceasefires is not enough. In Sierra Leone, for example, the civil war is over but the country has still not found peace. Without reconciliation, without coming to terms with the past and without the involvement of the public, there is no way Sierra Leone can make a new start. At present, all is quiet in the West African diamond-producing country. But the calm is imposed from outside and, at best, permits social stagnation. No lasting progress has been made (Anne Jung, p. 152). Top-ranking officials at the United Nations Development Programme are aware of the fact that much remains to be done in all war torn countries after hostilities are over (Interview with UNDP Administrator Mark Malloch Brown, p. 155).

Of course, military-enforced ceasefire is a blessing for any beleaguered population anywhere on earth. It must be remembered, however, that many civil wars are not simply “internal affairs”. Sadly, some armed interventions are designed to prolong, not to end civil wars. Typically, these missions involve mercenaries rather than regular soldiers. In Colombia, military service providers are working under contract to the US government. Officially, they are non-combatants, their job is only to destroy coca plantations. In reality, however, they prolong and intensify the conflict (Sheila Mysorekar, p. 158). If a pilot from Costa Rica crashes in Colombia while working for a US based company, the incident is considered an industrial accident and unlikely to make any headlines. If, instead, a US Army serviceman were to die in a Colombian coca field, President George Bush would be confronted with irritating comparisons to Vietnam in more than just the case of Iraq. Defence ministers may have budgetary reasons for awarding logistics contracts to private companies. But privatising military operations is unacceptable – and particularly so when executed without public debate and democratic deliberation.

Pointing out US shortcomings in Iraq, Colombia, Haiti and the UN should not, by the way, be seen as anti-Americanism. Criticism of a government’s actions does not imply blanket contempt for the respective nation. On the contrary, democratic-republican rules demand that diverging views and conflicting interests be identified and debated. That is why the US constitution guarantees the freedom of speech. After the Second World War, the American military government successfully taught Germans to cherish this principle.

All rich nations share the responsibility to ensure peaceful and constructive prospects. Military intervention does not suffice – and will cause harm if undertaken unilaterally. UN interventions may again and again be necessary to impose ceasefires. But development requires more: peace, cooperation and participation.


Dr. Hans Dembowski