What role do regional organisations have in conflict prevention and resolution? Due to an overburdened UN system, the international community has increasingly tasked regional organisations with conflict prevention and peacekeeping. This introductory chapter from the Institute for Development and Peace’s report ‘Still Under Construction’ outlines why regional organisations have played such a marginal role in the past. There are still weaknesses in regional organisations’ conflict prevention and management functions which will limit their future role.
Since the 1990s, the UN system has been overburdened. Regional organisations should therefore have an immediate interest in promoting peace due to the spill-over effects of war. The UN and regional organisations are increasingly taking shared responsibility for peacekeeping. This is happening in Europe and Africa, where the African Union, for example, is taking on new responsibilities. Regional and sub-regional organisations play a less pronounced role in the Middle East and Asia. The Association of South East Asia Nations (ASEAN) and ASEAN Regional Forum remain reluctant to give up sovereignty rights and take on a peacekeeping role.
Regional and sub-regional organisations are potentially interesting partners in conflict management. In practice, however, they often fail to live up to expectations due to several weaknesses:
- Lack of common values: Political differences exist within regional organisations. The most obvious is the contrast between democratic and authoritarian governments. Religious, ethnic and cultural differences also pose barriers to a joint response.
- Contested sovereignty: Even non-military intervention contrasts with the principle of state sovereignty and the norm of non-intervention. Delegating authority to a regional body is opposed by many governments. The nation state’s authority is jealously guarded.
- Overlapping responsibilities: The respective missions and geographic reach of regional and subregional organisations are unclear and often competitive. There is still no consensus about what is meant by the term region.
- Lack of capacity: Many regional organisations lack adequate institutions, procedures and capacity (human, material and financial). This makes it difficult to implement decisions and execute sanctions.
- Dominant regional powers: Some asymmetry in economic and military size exists in most regions. This can cause anxiety among neighbours. External powers have also left their mark in many regions.
Regional organisations remain a collection of nation states with a limited role in conflict management or peacekeeping. They have proved almost as awkward and inflexible as the UN itself; with practical measures often failing because of a lack of political agreement. These weaknesses have implications for the international community:
- Instead of ineffective regional organisations, coalitions of the willing have been charged with the task to intervene. This has happened with Iraq (without UN mandate) and east Timor (with a UN mandate).
- These coalitions can bridge the gap when there is a lack of agreement within regional organisations. But they can only be formed on an ‘ad hoc’ basis. This makes long-term commitments difficult or impossible. It also adds to the problem of legitimising a peace force when there are objections in the region.
- Donor organisations have highlighted the lack of regional capacity as a top priority without concern for different values within regional organisations. This is the wrong way round. Unless there is an agreed policy on how to act in violent conflicts, policy to enhance capacity for mediation and peacekeeping will have limited impact.
