 | ||||
 |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  | |
|
| Peacekeeping - Assessment of Peacekeeping's Effectiveness | ||
Conflict Resolution Assessing the effectiveness of Peacekeeping operations means coming to terms with the challenges faced more generally when evaluating conflict management interventions in the conflict context. In addition, the success of Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) must be judged against the different goals that they are expected to pursue. From the more general and ambitious to the more limited and specific these refer to: the contribution to Conflict Resolution; the Limiting of Armed Violence; and the support to other interventions with tasks of humanitarian assistance and Peacebuilding. The level of success is lower in the first, more ambitious goal, and higher in the third, more limited one. Rarely does a PKO influence the achievement of a stable solution to a conflict. Interventions are mostly successful in monitoring ceasefires, keeping rival parties apart, and deterring the escalation of violence. Even when the peacekeepers cannot intervene to influence the behavior of the parties, they can offer protection to the organizations that offer humanitarian assistance and deliver international aid before the settlement of the conflict. Once an agreement between the parties is reached, peacekeepers can still offer important support in terms of logistics and security to the Peacebuilding effort.
The difficulties met in the task of limiting the fighting are essentially due to the absence of full cooperation of all the parties involved. This is especially true for Second Generation deployments in the anarchical environment of intra-state conflicts. Interferences with the mandate can come from sub-national actors, irregular militias, or third parties such as neighboring countries. Even the goal of assuring support and security to civilian personnel involved in humanitarian assistance is complicated by a number of obstacles. The limitations on the use of force by the peacekeepers often put them in the condition of being easily overwhelmed, and sometimes humiliated, by the fighting parties. Military personnel have to perform policing functions to keep order against banditry and low-intensity violence. The coordination with civilian personnel and NGOs is sometimes problematic. NGOs often lament that the ?protection? by military units is counterproductive as it transform relief convoys in targets for hostile attacks. Moreover NGOs and other agencies have different priorities that often clash with the military focus on security. The efficacy of Peacekeeping is best measured at the operational level by the ability of the mission to supervise ceasefires, limit armed conflict, prevent new escalation of violence and create a secure environment for the operations of humanitarian assistance and Peacebuilding. Peacekeeping is not an effective instrument in influencing the Peacemaking process. The diplomatic and political processes advance on a different level. PKOs are most successful in those cases where a force is deployed to back a solution that already enjoys sufficient legitimacy and support. Peacekeeping deployments do not seek to influence the Peacemaking process. Nevertheless, when the PKO is viewed as part of a wider process of conflict management, it can contribute to creating the conditions for pacification by increasing security and reducing violence. However, it can be successful only if provided with a clear mandate, backed by political consensus and endowed with adequate resources. First generation PKOs have been relatively successful. If the prerequisites that guaranteed their success were to be reproduced, future Operations should concentrate exclusively on inter-state conflicts in which a ceasefire agreement has already been reached, and where the adversaries are clearly divided on the territory. Peacekeepers should remain neutral, refrain from the use of force and limit their mandate to monitoring the respect of the ceasefire. These operations can only be effective under very precise conditions; they need limited resources to implement a clear and limited mandate. These conditions are simply not present in Second Generation PKOs, because of the different nature of the conflict environment in which they intervene, regardless of the ambitions and expanded mandate of the missions. The model of Second Generation PKO that has proven most successful is when the UN plays a role of a guarantor and coordinator, caring for the humanitarian assistance and the organization of the civil structures necessary for a protracted Peacebuilding process. The actual Peacekeeping, the first phases of the mission and its military aspects, are delegated to Member States and/or other Regional Organizations. The analysis of these more successful Second Generation PKOs indicates which factors are fundamental in determining their effectiveness. Focusing on these factors might be the condition for the success of future PKOs, independently from the nature of the organizing institution, UN, Member States, or Regional Organization. The effective deployment of a PKO faces two categories of challenges: a "conceptual"/strategic challenge and an operational/tactical challenge. The first consists of the clear definition of role and purposes of Peacekeeping and of the drafting of an unambiguous mandate for each mission. The second category of challenges pertains to the ability to act effectively and fulfill the mandate. The two must be addressed in a coordinated way in order to overcome the challenges faced. The first lesson that can be learned by the different approach to PKOs adopted by Member States is in the selection of the missions and in the definition of a clear mandate commensurate with the resources available. Member states voluntarily offer to organize and lead PKOs only in the cases where their resources are sufficient to guarantee a successful outcome or where their interests at stake justify the investment of sufficient resources. When it is not the case, other diplomatic, economic and political methods of intervention can be taken into consideration. Functional alternatives can be more effective and useful to the goals of Conflict Management, when a PKO cannot be successfully organized. A careful selection of the cases in which a PKO might be an effective instrument increases the chances of success and helps improve the credibility of Peacekeeping. Credibility has a positive effect on the political support from participating countries as well as a deterring effect on the parties to the conflict. An unambiguous authorization and a willingness to use force when necessary can improve the security and the effectiveness of a PKO. Nevertheless the constructive cooperation of the parties to the conflict is the sole guarantee for successful Peacekeeping. The cooperation of the parties has to be assured by different means before the deployment of the operation. Once the case for intervention is made, adequate means and resources are crucial to ensure the effectiveness of the mission. Quick reaction capabilities are both a key for effective timing in intervention and a way to increase the credibility of international action, and it can be effective as a deterrent in the prevention and Peacemaking phases. The availability of sufficient resources and the flexibility in budget spending are necessary for the effectiveness of an operation, its rapid deployment and sustainability in the field for a sufficient time. Personnel trained to perform the specific tasks of Peacekeeping, with improved contact skills, and an understanding of the purposes of the mission have a better control of the situation in the field and better relations with the civil population. Similar standards of training, adequate and homogeneous equipment, integrated communication and intelligence systems improve interoperability among different contingents. Tested integrated systems of Command and Control improve the efficiency of the mission, its consistency with the mandate, and rapid and coherent reactions in difficult situations. Clear chains of Command and definition of a comprehensive framework of responsibilities improve the possibility of efficient coordination between the efforts of the different organizations and agencies involved in the mission. The institutional and operational dimensions come together to reinforce each other in influencing the outcome of a PKO. Sufficient resources are needed to carry out complex operations. Legitimate and authoritative institutions can afford to extract and invest the necessary resources. Fully functional institutions, endowed with experimented structures and procedures can direct the resources available to a successful outcome in an efficient way. |