Beyond peacekeeping: the challenges of post-conflict reconstruction and peacebuilding in Africa.

• Author: Grey-Johnson, Grispin

PEACEKEEPING HAS OCCUPIED a central place in United Nations activities in the last decade or so and was given added prominence following the adoption in 2000 of the Report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations, known as the Brahimi Report.

Scores of peacekeeping missions have been mounted in trouble spots worldwide; in Africa, the majority of operations were conducted in situations of internal conflict. While such intervention has led to cessation of hostilities, it has not necessarily resulted to a permanent peace nor has it fully addressed the factors that led to the conflict in the first place. The reasons for this shortcoming have to do with the causes of the conflict, the peacekeeping mandates, the structure and composition of the missions, and the perceived role of the United Nations in mediation. Many conflicts remain only superficially resolved, with all the elements for a relapse remaining intact. In fact, in some countries hostilities flared as soon as the United Nations left, as was the case in the Central African Republic and Haiti.

The United Nations must find a formula that will allow a successful transition from peacekeeping to peacebuilding and consolidation. But it is not presently structured to easily identify where to place this mandate within the Organization. The Security Council's mandate is clearly defined and limited to issues of global security, and peacebuilding goes beyond the need to secure the peace. It encompasses interventions that derive from a development mandate, which is the purview of the Economic and Social Council. This gap has been recognized over the years, leading to serious reflection on what is needed to invest the United Nations with the capability and capacity not only to make the peace but also to maintain and sustain it.

UN peacekeeping missions in internal conflicts are mounted when there has been a near-total breakdown of law and order: Governments have lost control; civilians are at the mercy of the warring parties; women, children and other vulnerable groups face extreme hardships; and there appears to be no end in sight. In many cases, government security capabilities would have been completely lost, and peacekeeping missions would be expected to provide security, secure public institutions and perform civilian police functions. The UN mission would have to monitor and enforce ceasefire and, if necessary, organize discussions or meetings, even if the mediators might be external actors. The mission is the eyes and ears of the international community in the conflict area and as such must constantly monitor the situation and present regular reports to the UN Security Council.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Peacekeeping missions typically have immediate or at best short-term objectives, such as: stop the hostilities: protect the civilian population; demobilize combatants; restore State authority; relaunch democratic governance processes; and organize multiparty elections. Even after the situation has been brought well under control, these objectives circumscribe the mission's capacity to effectively build and consolidate the peace. Once a country is at war, the assumption is for the United Nations to come in, cool down the fires, reinstate established authority, organize and supervise the elections, and then leave after two or three years. The United Nations would have kept the peace, but it might not necessarily have built it. Many have argued that peacebuilding is not within the purview of UN peacekeepers, especially under their present mandates. Yet, unless there are firm guarantees that hostilities have been halted permanently, and the underlying causes of the conflict have been identified and removed, peacekeeping gains could very easily become reversed and ultimately lost.

Experts have identified three clusters of factors that give rise to...