Is there a role for the military in peacebuilding?
Andrew Rigby, CCTS Review, 32 (2006). URL: https://rc-services-assets.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/review32.pdf
Review of background articles for a seminar on the titled topic from three different speakers.
The first article considers the assigned role of military intervention in intra-state conflicts, as well as the realised impact. Rigby establishes that while he holds pacifist values, there is an established role for the military in post-conflict peacebuilding around the world. However, a better understanding of which circumstances necessitate a military presence is needed, and if the military is to be involved, then best practises must be used. Mostly, the scope of military action in the peace process is limited to securitisation and enforcing ceasefires, and the author argues that the capability of an unarmed force has been underestimated. The author also observes that soldiers are trained to protect civilians from violent threat, but not in monitoring ceasefires or policing which is required of them in post-conflict peacebuilding. Rigby warns that if the intervening force are unable to fulfil this role, they may not be able to maintain the respect of the local community – which is key for a successful peace process.
The second article is titled: ‘Getting to No’, and first distinguishes between military involvement in peacekeeping, peace enforcement, and peace building. Peacekeeping aims to ensure parties observe ceasefire agreements, generally through patrolling, which the author argues could be just as effective when done by an unarmed force, for example trained volunteers. Generally, if the force is armed when peacekeeping, they are limited to only using their weapons in self-defence. Peace enforcement gives armed forces permission to use weapons for the protection of civilians against armed groups. The author argues that armed groups could instead be pressured to abide by ceasefire agreements through non-violent diplomatic tactics. Peacebuilding is the post-conflict recovery of a country that generally doesn’t involve the military, but instead community members and agencies who work together to restore civil structures. However, discussions around peace operations often blur these distinctions. Whether the role of the military could be taken over by an unarmed alternative is considered in these three circumstances, and military action as a last resort is emphasised. Although the benefits and role of the military in stabilisation and reducing violence through peacekeeping missions is accepted, the civilianisation of peacekeeping as far as possible is argued.
‘Carry Gentle Peace’: an analysis of modern post conflict dynamics, is the third article put forward for the seminar. Authored by a member of the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, it discusses conflict prevention, coercive diplomacy, and cooperation between actors in the post conflict environment. Goodwin also considers the expectations on troops to carry out multiple roles as soldier/diplomats in peacekeeping operations – a different set of expectations to battle conditions.
Overall, these articles create an excellent basis for discussion about whether there is a role for the military in peacebuilding. Some of the key takeaways include discussion about the identity changes expected from soldiers on peace operations as well as arguments for unarmed forces in peacebuilding as far as possible.