Post Conflict Reconstruction: The Full Engagement of the United Nations

May 20, 2004

by Rick Barton

Rick Barton is Director

of the Post-Conflict Reconstruction Program

Center for Strategic and International Studies. This piece originally appeared in March 2004, as part of the United Nations Foundation project on the UN and Global Security.

Building sustainable peace where wars have been fought is a central challenge of our

time and a distinct opportunity for the United Nations to provide leadership. With a

concerted effort to make post conflict reconstruction a signature product, the United

Nations could renew its core mission of peace building, deliver a much-needed service,

and reaffirm its relevance.

Over the past ten years, multilateral energies and national security resources have been

consumed by post conflict reconstruction challenges. From Somalia to the Balkans, from

Rwanda to Afghanistan, our existing institutions have been overwhelmed as they

attempted to restore public order, justice, governance and economic and social well-being.

Valuable lessons have been learned but their application remains uneven.

While post conflict settings remain chaotic, dynamic, and in need of rapid, tangible

progress, our institutions plod along, seeking order, moving slowly, and spending money

where it happens to be budgeted. The result has been a series of mediocre efforts in

global hot spots, from Haiti to Angola to Kosovo. Hope that comes with the end of

fighting has been squandered.

Winning the peace is not impossible, but it continues to be an ad hoc affair, with no

strategic thinking, little standby capacity, and scant resources. Existing architecture and

institutions resist change, fight bureaucratic struggles, and proceed to repeat mistakes.

Familiar practices abound. Faced with serious threats to public safety after the fighting,

the military leaves a policing vacuum. Knowing that sophisticated civilian leadership is

needed for decentralized reconstruction initiatives, foreign ministries and UN agencies

are incapable of producing candidates. Development professionals dislike moving

quickly into unstable environments, thus disqualifying themselves, and humanitarians

wring their “neutral” hands when faced with the rich political mix of post conflict places.

Debt overhangs, a lack of reliable local information and existing mandates further slow

progress.

History's flow is not encouraging. We have witnessed small, localized conflicts in many

places and full-scale wars in mostly smaller places. Now, with little preparation to deal

with even the mini state challenges, we are rapidly moving towards larger countries

where tens of millions of people live in much broader areas. Throwing money at the

problem in an emergency fashion will not be an adequate response. Nor will looking the

other way: these situations have a nasty habit of capturing the world's attention.

The international community remains unprepared. We stumble when faced with larger

peace-building tasks, such as Iraq or Afghanistan. Looking at the next generation of threats

and opportunities, from Pakistan to Colombia to the Democratic Republic of the

Congo, there is slight foresight. Should there be genocide in the heart of Africa

tomorrow the response would be much like it was in Rwanda in 1994. Even the prospect

of good news in Sudan or Sri Lanka will attract a modest global response. If we cannot

handle bad news, good news, or today's news, isn't it time for some serious

introspection?

Clearly there will be a demand. With 25 ongoing wars and other likely candidates, we

should anticipate a steady supply of countries requiring reconstruction. For ten years we

have witnessed an average of nearly two new post conflict cases per year, and that is

likely to continue with larger and more complex nations. On top of the current caseload,

how will we handle the crises of 2004, 2005 and beyond?

Post conflict reconstruction need not be so daunting. A body of intellectual material has

been developed, including frameworks to guide analysis and planning. The universe of

practitioners has grown into the thousands. Organizations have stretched their mandates

to expand the resource base. Certain change practices have proven to be successful, such

as the mobilization of women, decentralization, and mass communications. Traditional

opponents of nation building have provided unprecedented levels of funding. Yet

something is missing.

• First, there is a need for a capable lead for post conflict efforts. Because of the

huge range of countries in every continent and its degree of involvement, the

United Nations is the natural candidate. For the UN to become the leader it will

need to have that ambition and make a singular commitment to post conflict work.

Just as the UN became the global humanitarian leader through the work of

UNHCR, UNICEF and WFP, it should become the center of reconstruction

expertise and capacity.

• Second, to be the leader the UN will need a dedicated effort that goes beyond its

present structures. While it has gained valuable field experience, the UN is still

not positioned to rapidly implement a complex effort. No other organization or

nation can make that claim, but until the UN commits itself fully to be the global

leader in peace building it will continue to take on these assignments on an

accidental basis.

• This will not be as simple as bulking up DPA or DPKO or creating more capacity

at UNDP. Rather, it will take a fresh holistic organization with a post conflict

mission, starting with a strong leadership team, the kind of political analysis

described in the Brahimi report, special spending authorities that allow for speed

and the ability to cut across the larger organization for assistance, and the

wholesale assignment of talented people from the Specialized Agencies who have

worked in these kinds of settings.

• Third, clear choices must be made. Even with a renewed focus, there are still too

many places demanding too few resources. By emphasizing anticipation, the UN

could be more helpful in determining which reconstruction opportunities are most

promising each year while addressing a global shortcoming. Another prospective

vehicle would be the creation of a fund that could help to narrow the choices

through selective financing.

• Fourth, the United Nations should build the field operational capacity in priority

areas that are weakest. Recent experience has shown that the absence of security

and public safety continues to undermine many reconstruction efforts.

Constabulary forces exist in some nations, but not in sufficient numbers to

address the demand in post conflict settings. A standing international capacity is

long overdue, the UN is an appropriate home, and bilateral resources could be

used to reinforce a core force.

Post conflict reconstruction brings together the United Nations' two priorities, peace and

development, in places that matter. While it requires the skills of diplomacy, a

willingness to use force, a human rights perspective, the building of fresh political paths

and the restarting of a society, post conflict work is also highly practical and urgent.

Broader issues, such as sovereignty and equality of effort, will arise, but in a way that is

grounded by the real needs of people who have been victimized by war while helping

fragile states to regain self-sufficiency.

Post conflict reconstruction is the perfect issue for the United Nations to ground itself,

beyond the niche markets that it has filled in recent years. Iraq has shown the need for a

broad, cohesive and effective international capacity. It will not be built within the US or

within any other nation. If the UN makes post conflict reconstruction its overriding

commitment and does the job well, the resultant improvement in global safety and

stability will become its 21 st century hallmark.

Rick Barton is Director

of the Post-Conflict Reconstruction Program

Center for Strategic and International Studies. This piece originally appeared in March 2004, as part of the United Nations Foundation project on the UN and Global Security.