Chapter 7

Chapter 7

Conflict Management in Global Politics

Responding to the International Security Agenda

Chapter 7 evaluates instruments and tools of conflict management

Direct and indirect diplomatic interaction
Arms control and disarmament
Concept of human security
Use of international organizations and law
Peacekeeping and humanitarian intervention
Sanctions

Conflict management like international security is always changing

The Nature of Diplomacy

Diplomacy can be defined as purposeful communication between states, but is widening to include a variety of activities in contemporary foreign policy

Includes diplomatic activity between states and groups and nonstate actors, as well as individuals who may not be in formal positions of political power in a state apparatus

Fundamental components of diplomatic activity

The concepts of representation and communication

Reps. of states are acting on behalf of the government of that state, as well as in the instruction of the government
Communication protocols allow for interaction using mutually acceptable procedures
Diplomacy also helps efforts to prevent, contain, and manage international conflict

On the other hand diplomacy can be aggressive and militaristic

Public and private diplomatic affairs are highly formalized events

When head of state makes a visit – extremely elaborate

Many trappings of diplomatic discarded – key traditions still linger, like diplomatic immunity
Extraterritoriality is a foundation of diplomatic tradition
Diplomatic protocol prevents individuals, groups, and states from clashing on issues of symbolism and reputation
Diplomatic protocol maintains image that diplomats, officials, and leaders of equivalent rank are treated as equals
Miscommunication occurs often in global politics
Personalities are often a crucial influence of affairs of state
Diplomacy went through significant changes in latter half of 20^th century
Decolonization and increased global interdependence forced diplomatic services to adjust to wider variety of language and culture and larger number or states
Increased number of states has increased relevance of multilateral and conference diplomacy – within and outside established institutions
More efficient if all the states are represented around a single table
There is more of a need to know more specific technical knowledge

Traditional diplomatic service lacks this knowledge

Global communications have made contact between governments instantaneous
Another change is the expanding role of nonstate actors
Governments now maintain an active link to a wide variety of groups
Increasing the contact between different levels of society between two or more states is sometimes called track-two diplomacy
Foreign policy remains a relatively closed area of government activity
Open availability of information about international events – heightened relevance of public opinion

Made diplomacy a more public affairs – this has implications

Opinions of professional career diplomats reject if no public support exists
However, public opinion may compel leaders to act in ways that are contrary to the advice of the diplomatic service

Conclusion – public opinion may cause diplomacy of a state or group to be more reflective of the body of people; however it may lead to rash or dangerous diplomacy designed primarily to capture votes

Increasing importance attached to summit diplomacy, the formal meeting of heads of state and government
Summit diplomacy supporters

Can enable leaders to establish personal relationship
Can remove frustrating constraints of slow diplomatic process
Ex. Camp David brought together two countries that had fought for 30 years

Summit diplomacy detractors

Can lead to ill-advised decisions made by leaders without adequate consultation with experts or time for reflection
Ex. Yalta Conference
Many claim they are just photo shoots and parties, sometimes with little progress
Attract large protest gatherings

Diplomatic Techniques and Conflict Management

Effectiveness of diplomacy as conflict management tools depends on whether a set of proposals can be developed that each party prefers over reaching no agreement at all or over using violence to settle dispute
When outcome is not acceptable to all sides, diplomacy will fail as means of preventing , controlling, or managing conflict
Irony – during war crisis periods when diplomatic communication is valuable, such communication is least frequent
Diplomatic techniques that have been employed to facilitate conflict management

Signaling
Bargaining and Negotiation

Useful tactics

§ Discourage zero-sum views of the issues

§ Establish a fair compromise to ensure a lasting settlement

§ Avoid ultimatums and posturing; encourage dialogue and debate

§ Avoid humiliating one’s opponents

§ Blend rewards and threats

§ Avoid personal ad hominem attacks on the other party

§ Look for solutions acceptable to both sides, but different from the positions taken at the beginning of negotiations

§ Look for nonspecific compensation, one side gets what it wants but gives up something that was not part of the original dispute or discussion

§ Divide the issue into separate and more manageable subjects for agreement

Third-Party Mediation

Third Parties can provide services such as

§ Providing good offices

§ Providing a neutral site for negotiations

§ Clarifying facts and evidence

§ Acting as a mediator by becoming active in negotiations, making suggestions, and breaking down deadlocks

§ Acting as an arbitrator with the consent of the parties

§ Acting as an adjudicator

Diplomacy as a Conflict Management Instrument

Failures of diplomatic conflict management

Weeks before the outbreak of World War One

Successful cases of diplomatic conflict management’

1987 Costa Rican President designed peace accord for Central America

Two of the most watched diplomatic conflict management efforts today are Middle East peace process and the Northern Ireland peace process

Diplomacy and Conflict Management in the Middle East

Since 1940 main component is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
A root of conflict is land, both claim the same territory
Efforts have been concentrated on control of land, Palestinian self-rule, control of Jerusalem, return of Palestinian refugees to their homes in Israel, Israeli settlements on West Band, economic opportunity for Palestinians, access to water
Conflict resisted all diplomatic management – Palestine Liberation Organization and government of Israel using acts of terror, military, civil disturbance
Breakthrough occurred in September 1993

Israeli and PLO officials were secretly meeting in Oslo Norway
Mediation of Norwegian government

Agreement reached on September 13, 1993

Israel recognized PLO as rightful representative of Palestinian people
PLO recognized Israel’s right to exist and abandoned terrorism
Israeli withdrawal from Gaza Strip and West Bank
Self-rule for Palestinians in above territories

Follow-up Interim Agreement signed in 1995

Phased transfer of some land to Palestinian control
Phased withdrawal of Israeli forces from above areas
Easier movement for Palestinians between Gaza and West Band
Greater freedom for the Palestinian economy (heavily dependant on Israel)
In return PLO agreed to prevent further terrorist attacks on Israel

Disputes on outstanding issues began to erode support for agreement on both sides
Additional progress

Agreement to divide the city of Hebron – reached in 1997
Both sides renewed commitment to peace in Wye River Memorandum in 1998

Continued development of Israeli settlements in West Bank caused anxiety among Palestinians – and renewed terrorist attacks
July 10, 2000 – mediation with Bill Clinton in effort to break deadlock – talks stopped on 25^th over disagreement about future of Jerusalem
Both sides began preparing for renewal of violence
Some Palestinian leaders called for uprising to force Israel to agree to a separate Palestinian state
Israeli Defense Force prepared to crush any Palestinian uprising
“Spark” came when Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif, holy site for both Muslims and Jews in fall of 2000
Neither side showed restraint
El-Aqsa Intifada launched September 2000
IDF responded with massive campaign to suppress Palestinian uprising
Sharon elected prime minister on February 6 2001
Raids, suicide bombing etc. increased
300 P and 38 I dead
Bush called for end of Israeli settlements in West band, end of Palestinian attacks, creation of Palestinian state
February 2002 – Saudi Arabia proposed “grand bargain”- called for Israeli withdrawal to pre-1967 boundaries – exchange for normalization of relations with all Arab states
Weak version of proposal accepted at an Arab Summit in Beirut in March 2002
U.S. supported – Israel less enthusiastic because it called for Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem and supported El-Aqsa Intifada
Violence continued through 2002 and 2003
Reassertion of Israeli control meant by early 2003 boundaries outlined in Oslo Agreements were almost eliminated
Early 2002 Israel began construction of a “security fence” – designed to close off border between Israel and West Bank
April 2003 another peace plan proposed known as the “Road Map”

Designed and supported by U.S., Russia, the EU, the UN
Called for complete settlement of dispute by 2005
Ceasefire would be established
Palestinian Authority would carry out reforms
Israel would dismantle illegal settlements set up since 2001
Palestinian state would be created
Negotiations would be conducted on final borders, status of Jerusalem, right of return for Palestinian refugees

The “road map” did not achieve much
Domestic politics of Israel and Palestinian Authority increasingly defined
Israeli has varying attitudes toward any peace process

Many support return to peace process, but small conservative parties show little interest in compromise

In Palestinian Authority support for Yasser Arafat fallen

Militant groups have more popular support from Palestinian people
Little or no control over more radical Palestinian groups

Future political settlements will have to include Palestinian Authority AND other more radical Palestinian groups who direct suicide-bombing campaigns
Israeli government pursued a policy of economic and physical isolation of West Bank and Gaza – causing economic state for Palestinians to worsen
2000-2002 60% of the Palestinian population was living in poverty
More than half this population was dependant on food aid and demolished homes exceeded 2500 by mid-2003

Diplomacy and Conflict Management in Northern Ireland

Origins in Protestant English conquest of Catholic Ireland in the early 17^th century
Has become a conflict involving nationality, sovereignty, and self-determination
English dominance in Ireland secured by William of Orange at battle of the Boyne in 1690
Irish Civil War (1919-1921)

Between British and the Irish Republican Army
Ended in truce and independence of Southern Ireland in 1922

Post ICW – violence in the North continued between Catholic Nationalists or Republicans (wanted six counties of Northern Ireland united with South) and Protestant Loyalists or Unionists (wanted Northern Ireland to remain under British rule)
1922-1969 – calm
violence returned in the modern “time of troubles” more than 32000 killed
“Bloody Sunday” 1972 – unarmed protestors in Londonderry shot

after this the British army was regarded as an occupying force by Catholics

Bombings and shootings by IRA continued through early 1990s
Northern Ireland wanted a peace settlement
Round of peace talks began in 1996 – mediation of U.S. Senator George Mitchell

After IRA announced ceasefire in 1997 all major parties were present
Diplomatic breakthrough occurred on April 10, 1998

Settlement called the Belfast Agreement or Good Friday Agreement

Northern Ireland would remain a part of Great Britain as long as majority of people wanted it
Assembly would be established in Northern Ireland for self-governance
Institutions would be established to develop more cooperation between Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland
Civil rights of Catholics would be established and protected

Elections held for new assembly in June
Bombing, assassinations, attacks on property continued
Tensions rose during “Orange Marches” commemorate the Battle of the Boyne
1999 execution of Good Friday Agreement stalled – British government suspended the new assembly when the IRA refused to disarm
Attempts to revitalize agreement in 2000 and 2001 were not very successful
Both sides accused other of noncompliance with the agreement
In wake of 911 IRA was under pressure to meet commitments to decommission its weapons and disarm

Opportunity lost amidst revelations that IRA was spying on government

Slow pace of IRA to disarm and spying scandal led to suspension of political institutions
In effort to save peace process British and Irish governments issued joint declarations in October 2003

Calling all sides to restore momentum behind Good Friday Agreement

Early 2004 peace process remained stalled, political institutions of Northern Ireland function poorly, and decommissioning of weapons is still slower than expected
Large-scale violence resumed – still possible for both sides to not renew commitment to peace process

For conflict management to be successful both sides must prefer negotiated settlement to other alternatives (war or no settlement)
Even if there is commitment from all parties they may have difficulty controlling their people in order to implement the negotiation
Results from diplomatic management efforts

Improved climate between the parties to a dispute
Establishment of a basis for further negotiation
Creation of short-term agreement to settle an immediate problem
Establishment of a firm basis for a lasting peace

Results can include creation of agreement that becomes a point of dissatisfaction or a breakdown in negotiations and collapse of diplomatic efforts
Without diplomatic conflict management recourse to armed struggle is often the consequence

Disarmament and Arms Control

Main assumption is weapons contribute to outbreak of war along with a view that peace can be attained only through balances of power or preparation for war
Supporters of disarmament say frequency or war can be reduced by

Eliminating threatening or destabilizing weapons
Preventing arms races that increase tension and absorb financial resources
Promoting mutual trust and confidence
Limiting the destructiveness of war if it does occur

World War 1 – the destructiveness led to several arms control efforts
After World War 2 – development of nuclear weapons and arms race between superpowers – something needs to be done to control development/production

Peace movement organizations
Sponsored rallies
Marches
Concerts dedicated to ending the arms race

Non-state actors in a previously state-dominated game
Disarmament – drastically reduce or eliminate all weapons in step toward elimination of war
Arms control – regulating the growth of weapons and sometimes reducing arms levels (reduction in risk of war) – done through

Efforts to stabilize status quo
Build confidence between states and groups
Encourage the peaceful resolution of disputes
Discourage the use of force

“Arms control is fundamentally conservative enterprise. Disarmament seeks to overturn the status quo; arms control works to perpetuate it.”
Examples of disarmament efforts

Sixth-century B.C.E. China – states formed disarmament league – contributed to century of peace
1817 great Britain and U.S. signed the Rush-Bagot Treaty
End of World War 1 – Woodrow Wilson called for national disarmament to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety
League of Nations sponsored a World Disarmament Conference in 1932
UN has held a number of special sessions on disarmament since beginning in 1945

Other examples are forces measures of unintentional
Disarmament has short historical record – new trends towards disarmament may be developing
Large historical record of arms control
Majority of cases – has tried to ban production or deployment of specific weapon or restrict number of weapons a party is allowed to possess
During the Cold War there were two types of arms control

Bilateral agreements established by the two superpowers
Multilateral arms control agreements involving other countries
Some covered specific territory or region others had system-wide scope

Many agreements survive as foundation of contemporary efforts to address transnational security issues

Bilateral Arms Control after the Cold War

Cover issues that concern two states
Easier to achieve because they are only concerned with one set of interests and differences
Signing of arms control agreements accompanied by efforts to improve relationship between U.S. and Soviet Union in times of détente
Some agreements are informal
May 1992 three countries signed Lisbon Protocol to the START agreement

Eliminate all nuclear weapons on territories
Sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
These 3 and South Africa only ones to dispossess nuclear weapons

1992 Bush and Yeltsin agreed to Joint Understanding under START agreement

reduce the nuclear arsenals of superpowers by 60% by 2003 (later 2007)
formally signed as START 2 Agreement in January 1993
eliminates multiple warheads on land-based ICBMs
restricts SLBM warheads to no more than 1750
eliminating the weapons that would be most useful in first strike

End of Cold War reduced importance of bilateral arms control between U.S. and Russia – remain relevant for three reasons

Agreements between Russia and U.S. remain a sign of positive diplomatic relations, mutual trust, confidence
Securing Russia’s nuclear warheads, fissile material, nuclear weapons infrastructure
Strategy to secure regional stability and build confidence and trust between countries with history of conflict and crises

Multilateral Arms Control During and After the Cold War

After Cold War, arms control shifted from control of nuclear arms race
Focus of arms control is on transnational security

Requiring engagement and cooperation of many countries

Mainly Cold War agreements being strengthened and adapted to new international conditions
Interest renewed in multilateral agreements controlling spread of weapons
Using multilateral arms control agreements to respond to the threat of weapons proliferation
Two agreements to control spread of nuclear weapons

Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) signed July 1968 – nuclear weapon states are obligated not to transfer nuclear weapons or related technology, peaceful explosions permitted, participants pledge toward universal nuclear disarmament
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – verifies compliance with the NPT through constant monitoring of nuclear facilities and use of inspections
Some non-nuclear weapons states have built significant weapons development programs
2003 IAEA discovered traces of uranium at nuclear facilities in Iran

later stated Iran did not live up to its treaty obligations

April 2003 North Korea told U.S. officials it possessed a nuclear bomb
These example brought charges of IAEA to be ineffective as verification and lacks sufficient resources and enforcement capacity
NTP criticized for role in encouraging the spread of nuclear energy
India argued that NPT makes states work for disarmament, but when they fail to do this it is unfair for them to criticize countries for developing nuclear arms when they didn’t even sign the treaty, thus they are not even violating it
NPT maintains norm that nuclear weapons are dangerous and should be avoided
Without the NPT a bomb would be much easier to build
CTBT has long history

Since 1950 periodic efforts made to ban all nuclear tests
Partial Test Ban Treaty signed 1963 by U.S., Britain, U.S.S.R – joined by France and China - did not include underground tests
CTBT signed on September 24, 1996 – 90+ countries committed to not test nuclear weapons
CTBT prohibits peaceful explosions – closing hole in NPT
India and Pakistan refused to sign

Two mechanisms to address problem of bio and chem. weapons
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)

Signed January 1993 – full force in 1997
Aimed at disarmament rather then arms control
Obligation to destroy all chemical weapons and facilities in 10 years
Required to state if they have weapons, facilities, if they have received or sold the weapons from another country
Countries can challenge other countries for verification of treaty

Biological Weapons Convention (BWC)

Signed in 1972 – full force in 1975
Aimed at eliminating entire class of WMD
Prohibits development, production, stockpiling – but not their use
Lacks verification system and allows countries to use weapons for defensive purposes

U.S. rejected proposed protocol for BWC – little progress since
End-user certificate – accompanied any shipment of weapons

Specified country of final delivery and prohibited that country from diverting the weapons to another country
Subject to bribes, counterfeits, and smuggling

Non-nuclear multilateral arms control efforts

Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE) – to reduce levels of conventional weapons in Europe maintain by NATO and Warsaw Pact
Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) – to control spread of ballistic missiles
UN Register of Conventional Arms – to establish an information service to track arms shipments around the world

Inter-American Convention on Transparency in Conventional Weapons Acquisitions

Requires reporting of regional weapons sales and purchases

Critics of Arms Control

Very risky and dangerous – success depends on trusting opponents not to cheat
Because opponents word can’t be trusted – arms control compliance must be verified (complicated and difficult)
Arms control agreements will be violated in times of crisis or war
Knowledge to manufacture exists so they cannot be banned
Weapons that are banned have little military utility – are not useful weapons
Arms control agreements only challenge competitions into weapons-system types that are not banned or restricted
Technological developments can cause arms control to be ineffective
Making agreements with authoritarian governments is ill advised – more likely to cheat and be able to hide it
Agreements only bind those who signed it
Agreements often violated

Governments continue to direct more resources to researching and developing new weapons than to control weapons
Military and political leaders remain wary of disarmament and arms control as a means of strengthening their security
Leaders are reluctant to engage in arms control either because they want to attain a certain military capability and aren’t willing to commit to an agreement, or because they have superiority in a certain military capability and see no reason to accept constraints on it
Arms control is not a matter of East and West but a matter between North and South – Southern governments viewing global efforts to prevent the spread of certain weapons as discriminatory actions by the rich
More states are able to develop and manufacture weapons systems – making it hard to reach an agreement between such a large number
Expectation always exceeds the results

Human Security and Arms Control

Calls for shift in thinking on security matters from state level to human individual level
Human security is placed above state sovereignty and territorial integrity
First expressed in UN Human Development Report in 1994

Human security has two main aspects: safety from such chronic threats as hunger, disease and repression; as well as protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions of daily life (in homes, jobs, communities)
Economic development, human rights and freedoms, rule of law, good governance, sustainable development, social equity – as import as arms control and disarmament

Human Security Network established – consists of 13 states

Attracted many NGOs in arms control, humanitarian, aid communities, governmental
Realized initiatives like 1997 Treaty to Ban Landmines

Human nature is a vague term, and lacks precision
Roland Paris “human security is like ‘sustainable development’-everyone is for it, but few people have a clear sense of what it means”
Vagueness of term creates contradictions

Material and moral consequences for intervening in human security – as well as not intervening

Canadian human security referred to as “pinchpenny diplomacy” (cheap) and “pulpit diplomacy” (preaching morality while alienating allies)
Force of initiatives such as Ottawa Treaty and International Criminal Court
Unclear if it can be driving force behind arms control in absence of significant number of states to defend the idea and act according to its principals

International Law and Controls on War

Efforts to prevent/control war through international law concentrate on

Prohibition or outlawing of war as instrument of policy
Imposition of rules and regulations to establish a lawful conduct in war

No efforts succeeded in achieving the real goal of banning use of military force, war, or aggression
Much of the body of international law on war concerns its conduct
Laws of war of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) – establish rules of conduct

Distinguishing between combatants and noncombatants (civilians)
Treatment of prisoners of war
Establishing what is considered indiscriminate attacks
Restrictions of carpet bombing
Extrajudicial executions
Establishment of war zones

1974 Inhumane Weapons Convention
International law is frequently violated – unaware of the law or choose to violate because chances of enforcement are slim
Difficult to keep up with technological developments; many new weapon systems not covered by international law

International Organizations and Conflict Management

Act as forum for debate and discussion, test proposals, steam valve
Can provide third-party mediation in times of crisis or war
Can provide legitimacy to the policies of state or group of states – can serve to constrain unilateralism
Can promote peace and stability by establishing norms and principals of conduct and governance among their members
Seeks to promote domestic values and systems of governance that are regarded as stabilizing and non-aggressive

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
Organization of American States

Recently there has been a shift toward regional multilateral organizations as conflict management instruments
Examples of involvement of regional organizations in conflict management

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) -1949
The Organization of American States (OAS) - 1948
The Organization of African Unity (OAU) - 1963

Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)

The Arab League - 1945
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) - 1967

Trend toward regionalism in conflict management due to troubles facing UN
Regional organization advantages when addressing crises/wars within own region

Members will be more familiar with local disputes/tensions – put conflict in the hands of locals rather than the distant UN headquarters
Regional organizations may not be constrained by disagreements among countries at the UN
Regional organizations are able to respond quicker than the UN

Regional organization drawbacks

Local actors are involved – may lead some to pursue own interests in crisis
Some feel that local actors/regional organizations may lack neutrality
Often incapable of offering sufficient rewards or acting on threatened punishments
Most do not have a high level of political or military cohesion
Members are often deeply divided – agreement often difficult

From United Nations Peacekeeping to Humanitarian Intervention

From beginning UN was to “save succeeding generations from scourge of war”

Build around the state as a key unit in global politics
Balance between collective security provisions of UN and rights and sovereignty of states

Chapter 6 & 7 of UN charter – conflict management provisions
Chapter 6 - “ Pacific Settlement of Disputes”

States to resolve disputes through “negotiation, enquiry, mediation…”

UN – able to investigate disputes to determine if they endanger international peace and security – recommend resolutions for resolution
Chapter 7 – “Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression”

Obligation of member states to provide forces, facilities, and transit rights

Most significant conflict management tool preformed by UN is peacekeeping
1945-2003 UN created 56 peacekeeping operations
Origin of UN peacekeeping lies in use of observer and truce supervision missions
June 1949 UN created United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization (UNTSO)

Supervise truce in Palestine

1949 UN established Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP)
Term “peacekeeping” not coined until 1956 – Suez Crisis

Creation of the United Nations Emergency Force

Conventions that came to be called “traditional” peacekeeping include

Impartiality
Non-hostile and lightly armed personnel
Consent
Keep, but don’t make, the peace
Military personnel
Proper authorization
Reliance on member states
Non-territoriality

United Nations Operation in the Congo (ONCU)– UN became involved in civil war
Peacekeeping established itself as one of the most visible and respected UN functions
Character and quality of peacekeeping began to change by 1990-91

Intrastate conflicts dominated international security agenda – threats of international peace and security

UN became extraordinarily involved in intrastate conflicts

Security Council was more capable of reaching agreements on the creation of peacekeeping forces
More optimism that UN would be able to perform as the instrument of international peace and security

Reflected in An Agenda for Peace

Peacekeeping operations done by UN surged

1988 operating 5 missions
1994 operating 17 missions

UN missions experiences a number of qualitative changes

Increased size
Deployment within states
Lack of consent
Operations in hostile environments
Increased use of force
Creation of mission tasks
Peace building and national reconstruction

UN experienced time of troubles in post-Cold War period
Mismatch between traditional peacekeeping and the intrastate communal conflicts

Yugoslavia

UN succeeded in facilitating delivery of humanitarian relief to civilian population
UN failed to end hostilities in Bosnia-Herzegovina
UN personnel were targets to harassment, shootings, and hostage
Shifting of military balance, intervention of NATO, use of air strikes

Prompted signing of Dayton Agreement in 1995

Somalia

Initially deployed to facilitate delivery of humanitarian relief supplies
Obstruction of UN aid and fighting prompted creation of United States-kef Unified Task Force (UNITAF)
Initially successful; but became involved in a shooting war against one of Somalia’s factions

Rwanda

Conflict between Hutu and Tutsi raging for decades
Arusha Accords signed in August 1993 and United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda began
1994 organized genocide began
UN member states refused to acknowledge genocide was underway
500 000 people died and more would die as world did nothing
UN force supplied by France arrived after bulk of the killing – often protecting Rwandan troops from advancing rebel groups trying to stop genocide

UN made progress in reinforcing peace in Cambodia and Angola
Successes obscured by high-profile failures of Yugoslavia, Somalia, and Rwanda
Criticized for being unable to manage peacekeeping operations its mounted

Poor communication with UN headquarters in New York
Shortage of long range transportation and tactical airlift
Uneven quality of troop contributions and incompatibility of equipment
Little of no capacity to gather information or intelligence
Slow reaction times (as much as 6 months before UN ready to deploy)

Blaming UN can be misleading because it is member states providing resources
Demands made upon the UN are not being matched by the resources to do the job
Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) created 24-hour situation center to provide UN headquarters with command, control, and communication capabilities
1992 Department of Humanitarian Affairs (DHA) made humanitarian early warning system
2000 Brahimi Report released recommended

extensive restructuring of DPKO
improved capacity to react rapidly to crises
enhanced headquarters capable of better planning and coordination

Effectiveness of peacekeeping in the future determined by

Careful consideration of demands of a proposed mission and capabilities required to carry it out
Willingness of contributing states to offer money and resources
Willingness of parties to a dispute to stop fighting and begin process of building a peace

Peace building based on promotion of liberal values in societies torn by war
However peace building may be an attempt at “social engineering” – could lead to more conflict
Once again if member states do not provide resources – unsuccessful

Human Security and Humanitarian Intervention

States are now turning to regional organizations or “coalitions of the willing”

Operate with or without UN authority

Human security has controversial and complex relationship with humanitarian intervention
Genocide in Rwanda benchmark in development for human security

Lesson – small military force could have been conducted and would have saved many lives

Human security suggests that intervening in international affairs is ok if governments cannot protect human security of their own people
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty – Dec. 2001 the final report was titles The Responsibility to Protect and argued

State sovereignty implies responsibility, primarily for protection of people that lie within the state itself
When a population is suffering serious harm and the state is unwilling or unable to half or avert it, principal of non-intervention yields to international responsibility to protect

Report published after two cases that are considered cases of humanitarian interventions

NATO and Humanitarian Intervention against Serbia

Since creation of Yugoslavia, Kosovo has mostly been an ethnic Arab province of Serbia
Violence broke out between Albanian separatists (KLA) and Serbian police – early 1990s
KLA escalated into ethnic cleansing
NATO threatened Serbia with air strikes unless cleansing stopped
March 24, 1999 NATO began bombing campaign lasting 78 days
June 10 Milosevic government accepted NATO demands to withdraw security forces from Kosovo
Some say NATO acted illegally because no UN resolution was signed, not enough time was given for diplomacy
NATO violated rights of sovereign state and had severed Kosovo from Serbia by force
Some say Serbia violated international law, rejected diplomatic overtures, and engaged in ethnic cleansing – something had to be done
Canada participated in the war

Humanitarian Intervention in East Timor

Portuguese colony – 1975 invaded by Indonesia, subjected to brutal occupation
East Timor became symbol of world’s failure to respond to human rights disasters
August 20, 1999 – people voted against remaining tied to Indonesia
Pro-Indonesian militias reacted with campaign of violence, raiding of East Timor
Australian-led coalition got UN approval to protect East Timorese people
2000 Australian-led force was replaced with UN peacekeeping force
May 20, 2000 East Timor became independent and changed name to Timor-Leste
Many say Humanitarian Intervention represents willingness to act in support of human rights
The alternative, to do nothing, is unacceptable

Economic Statecraft, Democracy, and Conflict Management

Economic instruments have played large role in conflict management

Trade – wars prevented through economic interdependence
Use of economic sanctions
Democracies do not fight – promote democracies to prevent war

Interdependence as a Constraint on War

Liberals argue that growing economic ties will reduce incentives to go to war
Free trade would unite states and make war commercially suicidal
War broke out because leaders didn’t understand war no longer pays
States mutually vulnerable to the damage war could cause
War disrupts trade, eliminates markets, reduces production and access to resources
Interdependence promotes peace because states can do better with trade then conquest

Sanctions and Conflict Management

Sanctions are coercive instruments
Make take several forms: trade boycotts, embargoes, restriction on financial interactions
May be imposed unilaterally by one state, or multilaterally by group of states
When sanctions imposed, imposing country may have several aims or goals

Compliance
Subversion
Deterrence
International symbolism
Domestic symbolism

Use of sanctions increased in 20^th century
Sanctions tend not to have the same strength as other instruments

Leverage one can exert against target state is limited
Sending or initiating countries incur few costs, so diplomatic measures are less credible as expressions of will or commitment

Very lost cost, thus may be used more than military which is expensive
Success rate is less than 26% - rate is so low because of

Target state is usually able to find alternative sources of supply/markets
Sanctions may provoke nationalist sentiments and willingness to sacrifice in name of resistance against outside interference
Sanctions may do the most harm to the people they are supposed to benefit
The longer sanctions last the more likely they are to erode or collapse
Imposition of sanctions can increase power of undesirable political elites
Initiating countries can have inflated expectations about utility of sanctions

Sanctions should be imposed to give country incentive to change certain policies

A Democratic Path to Peace?

It is believed that democracies rarely if ever fight each other
Clinton Administration “enlargement of the world’s community of market democracies”
Argument that democracies don’t fight each other is based on

Domestic institutional structure of democratic states act as a constraint on war
Norms of democratic governance promote peaceful resolution of disputes

Democracies use adjudication to avoid violent conflict
Idea of democratic peace has been challenged

Institutional constraints may not prevent wars between democracies or else it would prevent democracies from going to war against any kind of opponent
Democracies have nearly gone to war with each other many times
There have been few democracies in history thus fewer opportunities for war between them
Democracies have actually fought one another – (definition of democracy)

Conclusions

Many obstacles for conflict management such as trust, compliance, self-interest

Key Terms: Chapter 7

Head of State: An individual who represents the sovereignty of a state. In many cases, this individual is different from the head of government.

Extraterritoriality: In diplomatic practice, the tradition that visiting diplomats are exempt from local legal jurisdiction

Camp David: A mountain retreat for the U.S. president in Maryland and site of the famous Camp David accords, signed in 1978 by President Anwar el-Sadat of Egypt and Prime Minister Menachem Begin of Israel

Intifada: a series of clashes between Palestinian youths and Israeli security forces in the occupied territories that escalated into a full-scale revolt in December 1987. The El-Aqsa Intifada began in 2000

Verification: process of determining that all sides of an international agreement are in compliance

Ballistic Missile: missile using a ballistic guidance system influenced by gravity and friction and employing no thrust after its initial boost phase; travels 300 meters to half-way around the world

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE): a multilateral forum for discussing a wide range of political questions in Europe; includes Canada, U.S., Russia, and all of the European states. Established in 1995 to give permanent staff and headquarters to the Council on Security and Co-operation in Europe

Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS): founded in 1975 to promote cooperation in West Africa; currently has 15 members

International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty: an international panel of experts convened to explore the issue of when the intervention in a state was justifiable in order to protect human security, commission’s final report titled The Responsibility to Protect

Adjudication: deciding a legal issue through the courts or some other third party that can make a binding decision