Three Ways to Improve Multilateral Peacekeeping in Africa (and Beyond)

While United Nations peacekeepers mostly have been an effective multilateral instrument for fostering war-to-peace transitions, peace operations continue to suffer from many problems. This is especially so in Africa, where the majority of missions are deployed. These shortcomings severely restrict missions from fully realizing their peacebuilding potential.
“UN peacekeeping missions are better able to protect civilians when well-trained and well-equipped troops participate in blue-helmet missions,” write NADINE ANSORG and FELIX HAASS in a paper for the German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA). “But it is particularly those countries with highly qualified troops, such as European or North American countries, which are reluctant to participate.”
African peacekeepers are increasingly filling the rising demand for peacekeeping contributions, but they often lack the training and the capacity to help missions fully achieve their goals effectively, the authors state in their paper ‘Three Ways to Improve Multilateral Peacekeeping in Africa (and Beyond)’, published as part of the GIGA Focus series.
“Peacekeepers themselves often perpetrate crimes – for instance, sexual abuse. High-profile cases have been reported from UN missions in Liberia or the Central African Republic. These crimes undermine peacekeepers’ legitimacy and obstruct their peacebuilding potential,” ANSORG and HAASS stress.
The authors suggest three ways to address the challenges linked to troop quality and training, regional peacekeeping, and peacekeeping misconduct. First, European countries, including Germany, should continue to participate in UN peace operations.
Second, Germany and its allies should keep strengthening Africa’s peacekeeping infrastructure, including the African Union and other regional security initiatives.
Third, to credibly push for a rules-based international order, Germany should use its position on the United Nations Security Council to press for reforms to the council and to improve the legal accountability of peacekeepers.
“These measures to strengthen troop quality, regional peacekeeping, and accountability against peacekeeper misconduct are neither a panacea nor the only measures available to improve peacekeeping effectiveness,” the authors stress. For instance, member states must also strengthen the UN in general, first and foremost by paying their budget contributions – a constant issue plaguing the institution and greatly inhibiting its proper functioning, ANSORG and HAASS state.
“But by specifically improving troop quality, regional security architectures, and accountability measures, the international community can help peace operations achieve their full potential as an effective multilateral instrument with which to contain violence and promote peace.”

Shaping Multilateralism: Principles and Opportunities for Multilateral Cooperation in the United Nations

An unrelenting weakening of multilateralism in recent years has eroded the ability of international organizations to perform their longstanding task of seeking solutions to old and new global problems. Various initiatives to mark the 75th anniversary of the United Nations in 2020 aim to restore this vital capacity.
“Multilateralism is characterized by rules-based cooperation. But which rules and principles can serve as the basis for cooperation in a multipolar world with increasingly divided societies?” GISELA HIRSCHMANN and CORNELIA ULBERT ask in a new paper published by Bonn-based Development and Peace Foundation (sef:).
They proceed to offer answers in ‘Shaping Multilateralism: Principles and opportunities for multilateral cooperation in the UN,’ published by sef: as part of its Global Governance Spotlight series.
“The first step is to identify ways for governments and civil society to reach consensus on established principles – and new ones,” the authors affirm. The next steps are to align existing institutions to these principles and to take active countermeasures against rising populism.
Flexible coalition-building, institutional reforms and winning people over are among the key preconditions to more actively engaging governments and civil society toward revitalizing the multilateralist project. “The aim of all measures should be to show that multilateralism serves the interests of every state and all citizens, because global public goods such as protection from climate change or epidemics cannot be provided or guaranteed at the national level alone,” HIRSCHMANN and ULBERT state.
“A key prerequisite for the success of winning people for multilateralism is credibility, however: only stakeholders whose own actions visibly demonstrate a firm commitment to multilateral principles will be successful in shaping the new multilateralism.”

Charting a Future For Peacekeeping in the DRC

Given that United Nations peacekeepers have been deployed continuously in the Democratic Republic of the Congo for two decades, there is understandable fatigue among Member States and donors. The UN Stabilization Mission in the DRC (MONUSCO) has come under increasing pressure to develop an exit strategy and plan for a phased withdrawal from the Central African country.
While renewing MONUSCO’s mandate in March 2019, the UN Security Council (UNSC) requested the Secretary-General to provide the body with “an independent strategic review assessing the continued challenges to peace and security in the DRC and articulating a phased, progressive, and comprehensive exit strategy.”
The strategic review, therefore, offers an opportunity for reflection and analysis that can strengthen MONUSCO’s planning. However, the timeline for MONUSCO’s activities and presence in the DRC should be driven by analysis of the conflict environment to ensure that its drawdown and eventual exit are not premature and do not excessively endanger civilians or jeopardize regional peace and security, a policy brief from the Center for Civilians in Conflict stresses.
“[T]here are still a number of hurdles that need to be overcome for the DRC to achieve durable peace, and MONUSCO’s protection efforts remain crucial in the meantime,” states the brief, titled ‘Charting a Future For Peacekeeping in the Democratic Republic of Congo’.
With limited support from the Congolese government in the past, MONUSCO has struggled to ensure that its efforts are sustainable. However, the January 2019 change in government presents an opportunity that the UNSC and MONUSCO should capitalize on.
“This is a time to evaluate what a successful end to MONUSCO’s mandate will look like, what failures from past drawdowns can be avoided, where the Mission has been successful, and which Mission activities should be reinforced to achieve an exit that does not leave civilians trapped between violent armed groups and abusive state security forces.”
Reductions to MONUSCO’s budget over the past several years have spurred base closures and an increased reliance on mobility. While recent closures in the west of the country may prove an effective way for MONUSCO to prioritize and refocus on the most insecure provinces, past base closures in the east serve as an example of the risks that can arise from a quick drawdown in areas where armed groups are still entrenched, the report states.
In the coming years, MONUSCO will need to continue providing protection to civilians, developing tailored and comprehensive strategies to address armed group violence, monitoring human rights violations, building government and civil society capacity to monitor and respond to threats, and supporting national strategies to address violence and promote human rights.
Success will depend less on MONUSCO than on the willingness of the Congolese government to support reform efforts. Constructive and sustained diplomatic engagement with the Congolese government by Member States and regional actors will be vital in this regard.
Moreover, bilateral engagement by Member States and a renewed commitment from donors on security sector reform and disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration will be required to pave the way for a responsible MONUSCO exit. In addition, as MONUSCO draws down, funding should shift to the protection efforts of UN agencies, international and national nongovernmental organizations, and some Congolese government agencies.
A rapid drawdown and withdrawal from the DRC would undermine the gains MONUSCO has made and have devastating consequences for civilians. Plans for MONUSCO’s exit should remain linked to thorough analysis of the conflict environment, and timelines for drawdown should take into account the need to bridge large gaps in security sector reform, the necessity of demobilizing armed groups, and the importance of transitioning protection-related tasks to other actors in the DRC.
The UNSC can avoid significant risks by linking MONUSCO’s exit to benchmarks that evaluate the security environment and signal when civilians truly no longer need the protection of peacekeepers, the brief concludes.

Dialogue in Peacebuilding and Social Cohesion: Understanding Different Perspectives

The constriction of the space for robust, uninhibited and constructive dialogue by entrenched positions, vitriolic accusations and a rejection of data or facts has emerged as an additional challenge amid the urgency to promote local, national and international efforts to address the world’s increasingly complex problems.
On peacebuilding and strengthening social cohesion, it has become ever important to place dialogue in the context of the evolving dynamics of conflict and shifts in international efforts to build and sustain peace.
‘Dialogue in Peacebuilding: Understanding Different Perspectives’ provides a glimpse of the multiplicity of ways in which dialogue is and can be applied to address conflict and to strengthen peacebuilding efforts, from contexts ravaged by ongoing armed violence like Afghanistan or Somalia to situations of seemingly intractable conflict like Israel and Palestine, as well as in countries and communities typically described as peaceful like Sweden.
Although they range widely, common themes do emerge in the volume, published by the Dag Hammarskjold Foundation as part of its Development Dialogue series. These themes included the reasons for and results of applying dialogue and some critical considerations for designing and facilitating dialogue processes.
Several contributors identify the use of dialogue as a key instrument for promoting inclusivity, engaging women, youth, marginalized groups and other actors who are typically not at the center of policymaking or negotiations. The potential to constructively engage youth and to counter perceptions of marginalization by young people through dialogue is underscored in many pieces.
Another common theme raised in the different papers is the potential of dialogue to transform strained vertical relationships between the state and society, or to cultivate civic trust in governance and official institutions.
The contributions raise many considerations that are critical in order for dialogue processes to be successful. Several authors emphasize the importance of careful and thorough preparation that involves building trust and for ensuring that basic conditions are present, such as that participants are prepared to genuinely listen and respect other perspectives and to share without fear of retribution.
They also underscore the need for follow up and sustained engagement. The role and identity of the facilitator is key to success and most recognize that this calls for acceptance by all participants and for multi-partiality.
Several contributions identify the media and, in particular, social media as a significant force and consideration, with the potential to support or advance dialogue gains as well as to undermine the process by deepening polarization and disseminating misinformation.
“Given the urgency of working together at all levels and across political, ideological and other divides to address current global challenges and to build more inclusive, peaceful and just societies,” the introduction to the publication notes, “this volume can perhaps provide inspiration on how to avoid ‘dialogues of the deaf ’ in favor of dialogue that genuinely promotes mutual understanding.”