Home
Summary
Background
Session 1
Session 2
Session 3
Session 4
Session 5
Session 6
Session 7
Session 8
Links
Contact

Purpose

This session allowed for detailed consideration of strategic level issues that arise in developing a response to a complex conflict situation. These issues typically arise prior to deployment of a multinational force or the commencement of a peace support operation.

Background

The success of multinational peace support operations depends heavily on the cohesiveness of the various coalitions that are formed at the outset of a crisis and throughout the various stages of its life. Each nation is in a position to make various choices about if, when and how it will participate. Each situation is different in time, place, and nature, and it will have a unique coalition makeup and character that has resulted from the foreign policy decisions that nations make in response to that particular crisis situation. Understanding and discussing the kinds of choices that exist, their implications and the challenges to building coalitions brings a more complete comprehension of the broader strategic elements that are inherent to a planned international response.

Discussion Points

1. What kinds of choices can nations make and what do they base those choices on?
2. Who are the actors involved in these decisions?
3. How do they evaluate and process participation in a peace support operation or coalition?
4. What are the challenges to building coalitions?
5. How does the nature of the coalition affect the development and execution of the operation?
6. What role does the UN play in determining the make-up of a peace support operation?
7. What are the issues of authority and command in multinational, coalition and civil operations?
8. How does the complex strategic environment impact on leadership in a UN or a 'coalition of the willing' operation?

Discussion Summary

The international community, or regional countries, will be interested in taking a country to reach normalcy - however the tools they may employ could be quite different. The security tool which engages the Security Council seems to be an anomaly, and the point where the international community becomes less engaged - what is it in that dynamic?

The Security Council is now well engaged. However, there is a lag. The Security Council does not yet define in the mandate what the end state is, and what actually has to happen, to get the conflicted area to a state of normalcy. End states are dependent upon Security Council resolution content and process. The end state by its nature includes mission exit strategies and situational end states.

Some countries have foreign policy peacekeeping legislation for peacekeeping operations; others do not. Countries may be requested to participate by the UN, which is considered by that nation on a case-by-case basis, but yet this participation or lack of participation does not necessarily create policy changes. National policy can be in support of classic or traditional peacekeeping, as under Chapter VI, but participation will still be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Some countries are challenged to participate effectively in peace support operations because of a lack of language proficiency. Or, a country has many troops, but no experience in peacekeeping. Perhaps they are small and lack other resources and capabilities.

The nature of conflict has changed and the response has changed also. A coalition of the willing is one of the options for the international community to respond with. A country may view itself as part of a regional group, such as ASEAN, ARF, Indian Ocean Rim Association, or SOAC, or a sub-regional group, such as the Pacific Islands Forum. SHERBRIG is another model. The US may serve as a facilitator where political agreement is difficult.

Some countries are capable of responding on their own but not for an extended period of time. Long term requires UN support. Coalitions may be willing politically but may lack financial resources. Some countries may have internal disruptions, for which they employ the use of their own armed forces, but the ultimate solution comes from politicians. In conflicted societies, states with difficulties where a great deal of political and diplomatic effort is required, these are equally applicable issues as when the international community is intervening. There are different kinds of assistance -- NGOs etc. -- who specialize in conflict resolution. Those on the outside can only offer tools. Encourage homegrown solutions and avoid parachuting in foreigners with their own ideas.

Participation entails subtle foreign relations impacts. The policy is impartiality -- but if it becomes necessary to use force, the results will have repercussions on relations with parties to the conflict. The consequences of the use of force will have consequences on foreign relations that have to be predicted.

An important aspect is information gathering. Developing nations particularly are sensitive to the word 'intelligence.' They don't want the UN to have an intelligence unit. But many conflicts are now internal -- to the extent that UN Development Program (UNDP) desk officers' jobs are to follow events in countries and keep in contact with colleagues with other organizations -- but it has to be made clear that UN is not trying to run things in that country. It has to be called 'information.' UNDP has to work in collaboration with national governments so that it is understood that UN intentions are not spying.

[Up to top]