In light of the United Nations’ (UN) failure to act in the 1990s, are Africa’s experiments in cooperative security the future of peacekeeping? How do new approaches to peacekeeping affect the legitimacy of global multilateral security architecture? This article from African Security Review analyses hybrid missions and security collaboration in Africa. These approaches are responses to Africa’s political, financial and operational constraints and should not be regarded as alternatives for UN-led peacekeeping.
African states need to reduce their technical and financial dependence on external partners and develop new, locally-funded innovative approaches to peacekeeping. While the adoption of local initiatives may sideline the UN, a reformed UN remains the only legitimate global body to set standards for peacekeeping operations (PKOs). Given the UN’s advantages in humanitarian and development assistance, greater cooperation in regard to a UN rapid reaction force should be considered.
The failure of the UN to deal with Africa’s security demands led the African Union (AU) to develop its own security architecture. Due to insufficient resources and a lack of supporting structures, however, this security architecture is not yet able to function effectively. The AU has therefore been forced to experiment with cooperative security arrangements:
- ‘Benevolent hegemonic’ countries, such as Nigeria and South Africa, have provided leadership for peace support operations (PSOs). Both countries, however, are constrained by domestic political factors and regional conflict dynamics.
- The AU has relied on the support of regional military powers, such as Ethiopia and Uganda in the Horn of Africa.
- The US has funded, trained and equipped states aligning themselves with its anti-terror initiatives. The AU has cooperated with and legitimised such unilaterally-initiated PSOs in the interests of stability.
- Due to the scale of PSOs required, the AU has reluctantly accepted the supportive or cooperative role of Western partners. An example of this is the transformation of the AU Mission in Sudan (AMIS) into a joint operation with the UN Mission in Sudan (UNMIS).
- The UN continues to play a critical role by setting standards and providing technical support, logistics and equipment. The UN also serves to legitimise cooperative security arrangements and provide a possible exit strategy for AU PSOs.
The emergence of new hybrid arrangements and security cooperation in PKOs raises a number of problems:
- Hybrid arrangements risk sidelining the UN in favour of hegemonic unilateral initiatives. Hybrid missions will raise issues of legitimacy, possibly leading to disputes over the role of different actors in particular regions or operations.
- Western countries are reluctant to commit troops where significant national interests are not at stake. Since developed countries prefer to deploy troops in regions outside of the continent, African missions have to rely on African and Asian personnel.
- Increasing use of Chapter VII mandates for PKOs is a source of unease in international affairs. It feeds perceptions that PKOs are influenced by US and British concerns with terror.
- Focus on rights and human security has increased pressure for robust military forces to deal with violent situations. This trend exposes troops to greater danger of attack, deterring states from contributing personnel.
- The influence of Western countries on UN Security Council decisions on PSOs undermines UN credibility. It also fuels the perception that the UN is being used to perpetuate and legitimise neo-colonialism.
