Search

Begin New Search Topic United Nations Political Geography Africa

61. Improving Peacekeeping Performance – Dilemmas and Goals

Author:
Nina Wilen
Publication Date:
10-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
EGMONT - The Royal Institute for International Relations
Abstract:
The recent adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2436 on UN peacekeeping is the latest development in an ongoing debate on how to improve peacekeeping performance. Africa’s status as both the largest provider of troops and the continent hosting most current peace operations, positions it at the heart of this discussion. This policy brief critically examines two of the options identified to improve peacekeeping: more troop contributions from states with advanced military capability and better training for peacekeepers. Specifically, it highlights challenges with training troops from (semi-)authoritarian and post-conflict states and points to the importance of improving civil-military relations in order to enhance peacekeeping performance.
Topic:
Security, United Nations, Military Strategy, Conflict, and Civil-Military Relations
Political Geography:
Africa

62. Is Kurdistan Independence Inevitable?

Author:
Yerevan Saeed
Publication Date:
09-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Middle East Research Institute (MERI)
Abstract:
On 25 September, residents of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI) will cast their votes in a referendum that may trigger an official process of separating Kurdistan from Iraq. International friends and foes alike have opposed the controversial Kurdish move, contending that the referendum will fuel further instability in Iraq, and cause repercussions across the Middle East. The Kurdish bid for independence is not unique, however. Ethnic groups in Asia, Europe, and Africa have in the past pursued their own dreams of statehood — some with success, while others ended in failure. Whatever the outcome, the process is often costly in terms of both its human toll and economically. For that reason, the secession of any region from its parent state has to be justified on strategic, political, and economic terms. For their part, Kurdish leadership asserts that Baghdad’s mentality of power monopoly has not changed and the long-term potential for future violence against Kurds remains high. For them, the only viable, albeit risky, path is to seek complete sovereignty. The stakes are high all round, and the international community could have a constructive role to play. Conversely, international disengagement leaves both Baghdad and Erbil exposed to greater uncertainty in the near future. Iraq and Kurdistan could follow the model of Kosovo, East Timor, or South Sudan, all of which realised their statehood but to varying degrees of stability; or, instead, the catastrophic pathways taken by the Biafra region of Nigeria and Katanga in Congo (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo). Though South Sudan is still reeling from its civil war and ongoing territorial disputes, international intervention has been key in preventing clashes between Khartoum and the new state. Some important steps included the signing of the North/South Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2005, and the active participation of the United Nations in the referendum process in 2011. Likewise, international support was a determinant in amicable separation of East Timor from Indonesia in UN-sponsored referendum in 1999, as well as the separation of Kosovo from Serbia in 2008. By the same token, instead of mounting further pressure on Erbil to cancel the poll, it could be more constructive for all stakeholders to assist Baghdad and Erbil to reach a mutually acceptable agreement. This is likely to be beneficial for all sides. A deal would mitigate the chance of violent conflict between Kurdish forces and the Iraqi army, and could save the UN and major powers from investing blood and treasure in case of a potential later conflict. It would also remove Kurdistan from international legal limbo and provide a more viable route for diplomatic recognition. In contrast to these experiences, the anticipated absence of international engagement means a unilateral declaration of independence by Erbil could prove costly for all sides. This is evidenced by the declaration of independence of the Biafra Region in Nigeria in 1967–1970. The Igbo-dominated region of Biafra did not hold a referendum to pursue its dream of statehood. Instead, the 300 members of the joint Consultative Assembly of chiefs and elders voted in favour of secession from Nigeria on 26 May, 1967. The following day, the same Consultative Assembly passed a binding resolution, forcing the head of the Eastern region of Nigeria, Colonel Emeka Ojukwu, to declare independence unilaterally on 30 May, 1967. Despite some international support from African and European countries, the move was met with harsh military and economic warfare against the infant republic by the Nigerian government, leading to a three year conflict. One million people, including many civilians Biafrans civilians died, primarily from starvation. Further evidence of the potential danger can be found in the case of Katanga. When Moise Tshombe declared Katanga province as an independent republic from Congo on 11 July, 1960, the move was initially supported by Belgium, and came just two weeks after the Congo’s independence. Tshombe famously said, “We are seceding from chaos,” referring to the messy state of affairs of postcolonial Congo. However, the republic, located in the mineral heartland of Congo, failed to receive diplomatic recognition — even from Belgium, and faced strong opposition from Congo and the international community. The events descended into political turmoil, and forced the UN to deploy peacekeeping forces. In addition, the competing interests and support for different groups from the US, Soviet Union, Belgium, and other powers further complicated the crisis from 1960–1965. It took three years to defeat Tshombe and reintegrate Katanga into Congo, with a high human and economic toll . Beyond these examples and above all, the right of the Kurds to pursue statehood can be historically and legally justifiable. At the dawn of the last century when the Ottoman Empire crumbled, Kurds were deprived of statehood by the Great Powers. They were subject not just to marginalisation, but to genocide as well. Even so, following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Iraqi Kurdish leaders actively participated in the political processes in Baghdad, helping rebuild the Iraqi state and contributing to the defeat of terrorism. From their point of view, Baghdad has not lived up to its commitments to the 2005 constitution. Furthermore, the Kurds in Iraq believe they have strong grounds legal for a Kurdish state. Under the UN Charter, they have the right to self-determination. Finally, legal scholars argue that the principle of “territorial integrity” — enshrined in the UN Charter — is not unbreakable, should a country oppress a particular ethnic group and refuse to provide equal citizenship. International and regional powers have expressed understanding for the Kurdish aspirations for statehood, but are concerned the result could lead to violence. However, if instability is the concern, they are well-positioned to facilitate an amicable outcome between Erbil and Baghdad. Kurdish leaders have said that they have reached a point of no return with regard to their status quo within Iraq. Yet, they have shown flexibility in a willingness to postpone the referendum, should the international community offer alternatives or agree to officially support a legally binding referendum in the future. Indeed on 14 September, 2017, envoys of the US, UK and UN, in coordination with Baghdad, presented an ‘alternative to the referendum’ to the KRG President. Details of the ‘alternative’ is not known but short of providing political and economic incentives and security assurances, it is hard to see the current momentum for the referendum coming to an end
Topic:
United Nations, Election watch, Conflict, and Independence
Political Geography:
Africa, Iraq, Middle East, and Kurdistan

63. Implementing the Responsibility to Protect: Domestic Processes and Foreign Assistance

Author:
Cecilia Jacob
Publication Date:
07-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Australian National University Department of International Relations
Abstract:
On 28–29 October 2016, the Department of International Relations at The Australian National University, along with the Asia Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect at the University of Queensland, and with support from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, hosted the conference Implementing the Responsibility to Protect: Domestic Processes and Foreign Assistance. The conference was attended by academics, including leading experts in the field, and members and representatives of a wide range of government agencies, the diplomatic community, international organisations, and civil society organisations. Two distinguished keynotes were delivered by the Honorable Gareth Evans, ANU Chancellor and co-chair of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), and Ivan Šimonović, Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect to the UN Secretary-General (SASG). The purpose of the conference was to bring together policymakers, practitioners, and scholars working on areas related to the implementation of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), primarily in the areas of state-level responsibility to prevent mass atrocities and protect civilian populations (what we call Pillar One of the R2P), and international assistance to states to fulfil this responsibility (Pillar Two). Recognising that the principle of R2P has gained significant traction within the international community since it was first introduced in the 2001 report The Responsibility to Protect, the conference sought to transcend longstanding debates over acceptance and legitimacy of R2P as a norm. Rather, it sought to clarify what the implementation of R2P entails for the policy and practitioner community, and to push forward new lines of academic inquiry and research that could support the implementation agenda. At its heart, R2P implementation is about strengthening the capacity of states to prevent atrocities from occurring in the first place. Prevention requires enhancing the resilience of societies that face the risk of atrocities through improved access to security, justice, and the rule of law. Effective mass atrocity prevention requires going local – understanding the dynamics of mass atrocities in their specific historical and social contexts; and going international – ensuring that international actors effectively align their priorities, strategies, and resourcing on atrocity prevention in ways that support local and national needs. This is an ambitious agenda, and experts from a range of fields were invited to address the practical implications of implementing R2P across numerous sites. The central themes included atrocity prevention, international accountability, human rights, international humanitarian law, justice for legacies of violence, foreign policy, development cooperation, peacekeeping, and civil–military assistance. The conference brought together different communities working on aspects that support the goals of R2P in order to enhance knowledge across thematic divides, and contributed to clarifying the practical implications that commitment to R2P implementation entails for these communities across the spectrum. This report contains the text of the keynote speeches, and condensed summaries of the panel discussions. These can be read together to provide a comprehensive synthesis of the debates occurring across the spectrum, or can be read as stand-alone sections for those with specific interest in a particular aspect of the R2P implementation.
Topic:
Genocide, Human Rights, International Cooperation, and United Nations
Political Geography:
Africa, Middle East, Asia, North Korea, Philippines, Syria, and Congo

64. Acute Food Insecurity and Conflict in Africa

Author:
Africa Center for Strategic Studies
Publication Date:
02-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Africa Center for Strategic Studies
Abstract:
Nineteen African countries are facing acute levels of food insecurity. Ten of those countries are experiencing internal conflict.
Topic:
United Nations, Refugee Issues, Authoritarianism, Food Security, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Africa, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Sahel, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Sahara

65. Refugee Flows Show Burundi Crisis Worsening

Author:
Africa Center for Strategic Studies
Publication Date:
03-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Africa Center for Strategic Studies
Abstract:
After two years the Burundi crisis continues to worsen. Despite government claims that the situation has normalized, facts on the ground suggest otherwise.
Topic:
Regional Cooperation, United Nations, Refugees, Displacement, and Violence
Political Geography:
Africa, Tanzania, Burundi, and East Africa

66. Burundi Refugee Flows Continue to Increase

Author:
Africa Center for Strategic Studies
Publication Date:
06-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Africa Center for Strategic Studies
Abstract:
As instability from the political crisis continues to worsen, Burundi refugee flows and displacement show no signs of abating. The number of registered refugees has risen 60 percent in the last year—to 423,056—escalating the political and economic costs for all of Burundi's neighbors.
Topic:
Regional Cooperation, United Nations, Refugees, Political stability, and Displacement
Political Geography:
Africa, Tanzania, Burundi, and East Africa

67. Conflict and Food Insecurity in South Sudan

Author:
Africa Center for Strategic Studies
Publication Date:
07-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Africa Center for Strategic Studies
Abstract:
The humanitarian situation in South Sudan continues to deteriorate as the conflict persists unabated. Four years of widespread violence have left 6 million people—half the population—acutely food insecure.
Topic:
Civil War, Humanitarian Aid, United Nations, Food Security, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Africa, Sudan, East Africa, and South Sudan

68. Africa’s Population Displacement Reaches Record Levels in 2017

Author:
Africa Center for Strategic Studies
Publication Date:
08-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Africa Center for Strategic Studies
Abstract:
Africa’s humanitarian crises have continued to worsen in 2017. Displacement of Africans has reached twenty million, and 44 million are acutely food insecure.
Topic:
Humanitarian Aid, United Nations, Food Security, Refugees, and Displacement
Political Geography:
Africa, East Africa, and Central Africa

69. South Sudan Conflict Drives Massive Population Movement

Author:
Africa Center for Strategic Studies
Publication Date:
10-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Africa Center for Strategic Studies
Abstract:
Mass atrocities, including unlawful killings, rape, torture, and destruction of property, have caused one in three people in South Sudan to flee their homes.
Topic:
Genocide, Human Rights, United Nations, Refugees, and Displacement
Political Geography:
Africa, Sudan, East Africa, South Sudan, and Central Africa

70. Dynamics of African Economic Migration

Author:
Africa Center for Strategic Studies
Publication Date:
12-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Africa Center for Strategic Studies
Abstract:
Migration continues to be a major issue affecting African societies. Here are three observations on how Africa’s economic migrants* affect security on the continent:
Topic:
Migration, United Nations, Diaspora, Refugees, and Displacement
Political Geography:
Africa, Libya, Egypt, Mediterranean, and Gulf of Aden