Conflict prevention and the EU: From rhetoric to reality

CHAPTER TWO Conflict prevention and the EU: From rhetoric to reality Sarah Bayne, International Alert and Saferworld The only way to deal with conflict is to address effectively the root causes through a long term structural prevention policy. Greek Minister for Foreign Affairs, Georgios Papandreou, Helsingborg, August 2002 Armed conflict has become one of the most prevalent causes of poverty in many parts of the world, in particular the regions of Sub-Saharan Africa. Conflict denies populations their basic human rights and at a macro level undermines the development prospects of states through a decline in state capacity, a shrinking revenue base and diversion of funds to the security sector. Conflict and poverty frequently become self-reinforcing whereby the existence of poverty can present a key conflict risk. The European Union (EU) recognises the linkages between underdevelopment and conflict and is one of the leading international bodies affirming the importance of and enhancing capacity for peace building and conflict prevention (see definitions). The EU was itself founded as an institution for preventing future violent conflict in Europe. Part of the EU s potential to play a significant role in this field is the increasing range of measures at its disposal such as development assistance, diplomacy and foreign policy, human rights policy, trade policy, social policy and an emerging security and defence policy. BEN JACKSON/ACTSA DEFINITIONS USED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION (see http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/development_old/prevention/definition.htm) CONFLICT PREVENTION Actions undertaken over the short term to reduce manifest tensions and / or to prevent the outbreak or recurrence of violent conflict. PEACE-BUILDING (including post-conflict peace-building) Actions undertaken over the medium and longer-term to address root-causes of violent conflicts in a targeted manner. CONFLICT MANAGEMENT Actions undertaken with the main objective to prevent the vertical (intensification of violence) or horizontal (territorial spread) escalation of existing violent conflicts CONFLICT RESOLUTION Actions undertaken over the short term to end violent conflict. CRISIS MANAGEMENT Actions to prevent the eruption or escalation of conflicts, and consolidating peace and internal stability in a period of transition. (Feria Council guidelines, 2000.) EU CONFLICT 19

This paper aims to outline the policy commitments and approach to conflict prevention 1 made by the EU, the progress made against those commitments and the challenges and obstacles facing implementation. It concludes with some concrete recommendations on how the EU might more effectively implement conflict prevention policies in the context of the on-going Convention of the Future of Europe, the forthcoming Inter-Governmental Conference and the planned re-drafting of the EU Treaty. 2 The EU s policy commitment and approach to conflict prevention Since the mid 1990 s conflict prevention has steadily been creeping up the political agenda of the EU, both in line with the EU s own potential in this area and an increasing appreciation by donors and northern governments of the importance of the issue. The EU (Council and Commission) has developed a series of key policy statements and initiatives that demonstrate both its commitment and its approach to the subject (see box for key EU policy statements). These include: the agreement of the EU Programme for the Prevention of Violent Conflicts at the Gotenburg Summit in June 2001, the publication of the Commission Communication on Conflict Prevention in April 2001 and the signing of the Cotonou Agreement in 2000, which highlights the importance of prioritising conflict prevention and political dialogue in cooperation between the EU and African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. Further initiatives under the Spanish and Danish Presidencies in the form of reporting on progress have aimed to provide a continuity of commitment between the rotating EU Presidencies. Underlying the EU s approach to preventing and tackling violent conflict is an understanding of the importance of using a wide range of measures, extending across the full spectrum of external policy, targeted to address the root causes of conflict over the longer term. Importantly, conflict prevention is increasingly no longer seen as a distinct activity, but rather a broader approach to policy making, which recognises that every measure or action at the disposal of the EU may play a role. According to the Commission Communication on Conflict Prevention (2001), development co-operation provides one of the most powerful instruments at the Community s disposal for treating root causes of conflict over the longer term. This reflects recognition within the Commission and the EU more generally, of the linkages between conflict and poverty and the importance of mainstreaming conflict prevention into development co-operation in areas such as education, health, infrastructure, in addition to an emphasis on areas such as security sector, governance and human rights. To be effective, however, 20 EUROPE IN THE WORLD

KEY EU POLICY STATEMENTS RELATED TO CONFLICT PREVENTION Communication from the Commission on The Participation of Non-State Actors in EC Development Policy, November 2002 Implementation of the EU Programme for the Prevention of Violent Conflicts, Seville European Council, June 2002 Development Council Conclusions on Countries in Conflict, May 2002 Council Conclusions on Conflict Prevention, July 2001 EU Programme for the Prevention of Violent Conflicts, Gotenburg European Council, June 2001 Development Council Conclusions on Conflict Prevention, May 2001 Council Common Position Concerning Conflict Prevention Management and Resolution in Africa, May 2001 Communication from the Commission on Conflict Prevention, April 2001 European Parliament Resolution on Conflict Prevention and Crisis Management, March 2001 Report presented by the High Representative/Commission on Improving the Coherence and Effectiveness of EU Action in the Field of Conflict Prevention, December 2000 The European Parliament Resolution on Gender Aspects of Conflict Resolution and Peace-building, November 2000 Cotonou ACP-EU Aid and Trade Partnership Agreement, June 2000 these actions should be coherent to approaches and activities emanating from within the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) (such as political dialogue, diplomatic initiatives, use of envoys, early warning), the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), trade policy and social and environmental policy. A focus on partnership and civil society engagement, as well as crosscutting issues such as the availability of small arms, are also key elements of the EU s approach to conflict prevention. In addition to these longer-term measures, growing emphasis has been placed on the shorter term measures of both civilian and military crisis management (within CFSP). Initiatives have taken place to enhance EU capabilities to undertake a range of military crisis management tasks within the framework of ESDP and the enhancement of better co-ordination of the Union s and member states civilian crisis response tools, in particular in the fields of policing, rule of law, civil protection and civilian administration. EU CONFLICT 21

Progress so far Although there is a long way to go before the EU fully realises its potential, there has been demonstrable progress in terms of developing institutional capacities and activities, which can support the implementation of the policy commitments to conflict prevention. Within the External Relations Directorate of the European Commission, a Conflict Prevention Unit has been established with the responsibility for mainstreaming conflict prevention priorities within Community policy (such as trade, development, environment). Within the Council, the introduction of the Policy Planning and Early Warning Unit (PPEWU) has provided an important capacity for analysis and initiatives in support of conflict prevention. It has been argued by some that, if directed well, the recent merging of the Development and General Affairs Council has the potential to enable further coherence between conflict prevention activities emerging from development cooperation and those actions within the field of CFSP. However there are concerns by others that the development agenda may be sidelined. In the area of development policy, reform in terms of the introduction of country and regional strategy papers, the dispersal (delegation & deconcentration are the terms the Commission uses to describe the process) of authority and personnel to delegations, the launch of the Inter Service Quality Support group and the introduction of practical conflict related methodologies for Commission staff (eg. the checklist for root causes of conflict) all have the potential to facilitate the implementation of conflict prevention commitments. Within the Council, there have been examples of attempts to pro-actively coordinate the work of the management committees for development assistance with the CFSP working groups. This is in order to promote coherence in the use of these instruments (eg. political dialogue and development assistance) in crisis and conflict affected countries and in broader conflict prevention initiatives, such as support to Africa Union (AU) capacities. CFSP Council working groups and Committees, such as the Africa Working Group and the Political and Security Committee, are increasingly reflecting on strategies to prevent and manage conflicts, feeding these approaches into the decision-making system. This emphasis is reflected by an increasing number of CFSP instruments used in relation to certain conflicts (such as in South East Europe), including CFSP Declarations, common approaches, the deployment of EU Envoys and Troika missions. Discussions within these committees also feed into an orientation debate introduced for the start of each EU Presidency which aims to set priorities for conflict prevention activities. The implementation of regional co-operation frameworks, such as the ACP- EU Cotonou Partnership Agreement, have seen some evidence of an increased 22 EUROPE IN THE WORLD

use of political dialogue; a willingness to engage in more political activities, such as demobilisation and support for peace processes; efforts to support non-state actor engagement and the adoption of a policy of constructive engagement with conflict affected countries. Recent EU policy towards Sudan and Rwanda provides interesting case studies, demonstrating the determination by some elements of the EU to move beyond simply the provision of humanitarian assistance to new forms of engagement and influence (see box below). In the area of Civilian Crisis Management progress over the past year has been made in the development of civilian personnel deployment capacities. The targets for civilian personnel in the four civilian areas of crisis management identified by the Feira European Council, due to be met by 2003, have been exceeded through voluntary commitments of member states. 3 The EU Police Mission (EUPM) took over from the UN International Police Force in Bosnia Herzegovina in January this year. The Commission has also established a network of national civilian training institutions with the aim of developing common training modules for civilian personnel in the areas of rule of law and civilian administration. EU CO-OPERATION WITH SUDAN: LINKING POLITICAL DIALOGUE, DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE AND CIVIL SOCIETY ENGAGEMENT In 1990, formal co-operation between the EU and Sudan under the Lomé agreement was suspended in reaction to a prevailing lack of human rights, democracy and satisfactory efforts to negotiate an end to the civil war, leaving humanitarian aid as the only instrument of cooperation. Since 2000, however, the EU has been engaged in a process of constructive engagement towards Sudan through a process of political dialogue on issues such as human rights, democratisation and the peace-process. On the basis of progress in this dialogue, the EU has explored the possibility of opening up consultations under Article 96 of Cotonou in order to re-examine the suspension and initiate the programming of the 9th European Development Fund (EDF). Linked to this dialogue has been the development of a humanitarian plus programme using unspent EDF funds as a possible pre-cursor to a longer-term framework for development cooperation. Sudan has also become a focus country of the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) in 2002, whereby actions funded through this budget line will be aimed at reinforcing those areas covered by the political dialogue. At the request of the European Commission and the Government of Sudan, the European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM), supported by Saferworld, has also facilitated a process of capacity-building for civil society to enhance their ability to engage in future political dialogue and development programming and implementation. This process has included awareness-raising and mapping of non-state actors. EU CONFLICT 23

EU CO-OPERATION IN RWANDA: THE EU S ENGAGEMENT WITH CIVIL SOCIETY IN BUILDING JUSTICE & RECONCILIATION The European Commission has made a welcome commitment to support reconciliation, justice and an end to impunity after the catastrophe of the Rwandan genocide in 1994 where up to one million Rwandans were slaughtered over a 100-day period of state-led ethnic genocide. In 2002, the European Development Fund, in association with the Rwandan Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, funded civil society actors euro 1,750,000 for activities related to the effective implementation of the Gacaca justice system. With over 120,000 people in Rwanda s prisons, under the regular court system, most prisoners would not face trial within their lifetime. In 2001, the Rwandan Government revised and adapted the traditional conflict resolution mechanism, Gacaca, literally meaning justice on the grass. The aim is to provide communitybased justice to speed up the trials and to involve the community, including the victims, in establishing the truth and promoting reconciliation. Representative and legitimate civil society actors can play an important role in the potential success of the process by raising awareness, promoting participation and by monitoring and supporting the implementation of the justice system. The promotion of women s gender specific experiences and rights as participants in the process is also essential to its success. One of the successful recipients of the European Commission funds has been the joint initiative between the UK-based NGO, International Alert, and Rwanda-based NGO, ProFemmes Twesehamwe, a collective of 40 women s organisations in Rwanda. The project aims to promote women s role in the Gacaca justice system through awareness-raising, skills training, advocating for legal reform, supporting the reintegration of women ex-prisoners and documenting and evaluating women s contribution to the Gacaca justice process. Challenges and obstacles to effective conflict prevention It is important to recognise and support the progress that has been made by the EU, however, it is also imperative to weigh this up against an analysis of the ongoing challenges, issues and limitations that face the advancement of conflict prevention by the EU. It is these challenges and obstacles that will need to be overcome if progress is to move beyond simply a quantitative increase in institutional capacities and activities to becoming a tangible reduction in violent conflict within countries and regions where the EU is present. Political will and interests of member states The EU is shaped by the influence and interests of its member states, the goals of the European Commission and the powers of the European Parliament. For policy commitments to be translated into practical action they need to be 24 EUROPE IN THE WORLD

matched by the political will of these actors to prioritise issues within the framework of the EU. This is no less the case in the field of conflict prevention. A key obstacle to coherent, timely and decisive EU action within the CFSP has been the tendency of member states to act outside the EU if they do not perceive it as the most appropriate avenue for achieving their objectives or protecting their interests as demonstrated recently by the cases of Iraq and Zimbabwe. This is unfortunate, as in cases where there is an overall EU approach, the EU amply proves its significance and weight as a global player as highlighted in EU policy towards the Israel-Palestine conflict. The tendency of member states to pursue their own interests is also reflected in an overemphasis within EU external policy on regions which are of strategic interest, either for economic, historic or security reasons. This is demonstrated by the focus of EU conflict prevention and management instruments, such as civilian and military crisis management, CFSP initiatives and development spending on the near abroad in particular South Eastern Europe. With the inevitable reality of limited space on the EU s decision making agenda and a finite amount of resources, there is an on-going risk that those conflict affected countries in non-strategic areas are sidelined or only given attention when a crisis erupts, rather than receiving the longer term focus needed for effective conflict prevention. The relatively limited number of effective conflict prevention initiatives in areas of Africa are perhaps symptomatic of this trend, as is the politicisation of humanitarian assistance in non strategic areas (see article by Joanna Macrae, ODI). Conflict sensitive development and humanitarian assistance is an important ingredient of a long term approach to conflict prevention, however it is not a substitute for a coherent and integrated approach using a full range of instruments including CFSP instruments, such as political dialogue and the use of envoys. Institutional issues, decision- making and oversight. The complex institutional and decision making infrastructure of the EU, a product of incremental political evolution rather than design, poses a significant obstacle to the implementation of conflict prevention commitments. Decisions and policies related to external relations and conflict prevention are generated and implemented in all three pillars 4 of the EU presenting challenges for achieving coherence between instruments despite attempts to overcome these institutional constraints (outlined above). The asymmetry in the resourcing of conflict prevention activities (there are limited resources in the pillar one CFSP budget in relation to the Community budgets) has created inconsistencies between the different institutions and the fast rotation of the presidency system EU CONFLICT 25

is also detrimental to continuity. These factors inevitably undermine capacity to implement policy in a coherent and coordinated manner. Of concern to many is also the issue of the accountability of conflict prevention policies and, in particular, activities within the framework of the CFSP and ESDP, due to the limited oversight powers of the European Parliament. Community policy and civil society engagement In the field of development co-operation, mainstreaming efforts are hindered by an ongoing propensity within the Commission to view conflict prevention as a distinct sector of engagement or relevant only to specific interventions rather than an issue to be mainstreamed into all areas and instruments of assistance. In a context of multiple cross-sectoral issues (such as gender, environment) both the willingness and capacity to mainstream conflict prevention within development policy is insufficient. This also extends to areas such as trade and the private sector where, despite initiatives on specific hot subjects such as conflict diamonds, conflict prevention has remained a low priority. The White Paper on Corporate Social Responsibility, for example, makes no reference to the role of multinational companies in conflict prevention. Overall, what is lacking within the European Commission is the fostering of a culture amongst staff of prioritising a conflict prevention approach alongside political analysis. Effective engagement of civil society has also come up against similar obstacles. In conflict-affected countries, the level of engagement with civil society on this issue is often ad hoc and a reflection of the approach and experience of individual officials on the ground and the available capacity, rather than an embedded culture. Many civil society actors themselves also lack capacity and understanding of the EU to effectively engage. Crisis Management From a peace-building perspective, not enough attention is being paid in the EU to linking crisis management capacities to longer-term conflict prevention strategies. Crisis management alone cannot bring about sustainable solutions to violent conflict, yet in the short term, it can provide the stability for longer-term conflict prevention work to take root and in turn, prevent the recurrence of violent conflict. Obstacles to the linking of these instruments lie partly in the decision making structure of the EU (see above) whereby the pillar structure hampers the ability of the EU to effectively link its civilian crisis management instruments with its conflict prevention instruments. This division of labour and responsibility across the pillars and between institution and corresponding departments can lead to a lack of coordination. This impedes progress on issues 26 EUROPE IN THE WORLD

related to financing, developing decision-making and implementation procedures, establishing and maintaining rosters and issues related to training. The fight against terror The war against terror has significant potential for embracing the importance of conflict prevention and the promotion of stability in regions of the world. In another article Karin von Hippel discusses the specifics of a European counterterrorism strategy. There is a risk, however, that international responses to the terrorist threat will shift towards a focus on hard instruments, such as emergency policing, detention without trial and military measures, without adequately addressing the need for soft instruments, that address the root causes of terrorism, including diplomacy, political dialogue and well targeted development and economic co-operation. There are fears that in the war on terror, the Convention on the Future of Europe process may reinforce this trend and subordinate human rights, anti-poverty and development policies to further a new EU foreign policy agenda. In a global environment where pre-emptive military action is viewed by some as a viable instrument in the war on terror, it is, therefore, even more important that the EU overcomes the obstacles outlined above and harnesses its potential as a global player promoting values of peace, justice and human rights beyond its borders. Concluding comments and recommendations ensuring future progress in the prevention of violent conflict This concluding section presents a selected number of focused recommendations on how the future of the EU can ensure and sustain progress in the prevention of violent conflict in the face of the obstacles and challenges outlined above. In an enlarged Europe, many new members will have their own priorities and agendas that may impede on efforts to mainstream conflict prevention. The Convention on the Future of Europe offers a valuable opportunity to define Europe s vision of peace and security for itself and the rest of the world and could be a useful tool for consolidating co-ordination across EU institutions and activities. The following recommendations are, therefore, particular relevant to the debate on the future of Europe and the forthcoming Inter-governmental Conference. 5 Make conflict prevention a stated objective of European Foreign and Security Policy Whilst conflict prevention is currently an implicit objective of the CFSP (in its objectives of preserving peace and strengthening international security Article 11 point 3, TEU (Treaty of the European Union)), explicitly including the prevention of violent conflict as an objective would provide a treaty basis for EU CONFLICT 27

ensuring the EU s external activities are coherent and consistent with this goal. Make the prevention of violent conflicts a stated objective of European Community policy in development co-operation and trade in order to provide a treaty basis for ensuring these policies are coherent with the goal of conflict prevention. Strengthen annual reviews of conflict prevention policies Reviews, such as the review of the EU Programme for the Prevention of Violent Conflicts need to go beyond an assessment of institutional capacities and activities to provide an indepth analysis of the tangible impact of policies on risks of conflicts in regions, the obstacles to achieving stated aims and state binding priorities and recommendations for future action. Bring the first two pillars of the EU closer through merging the posts of High Representative for CFSP with the position of Commissioner of External Relations and creating a new High Representative holding the office of Vice President of the Commission made responsible for the coordination of all EU external actions. Ensure effective and decisive decision making in the area of CFSP through extending qualified majority voting to all non-military areas of CFSP. Strengthen the capacity and powers of the Conflict Prevention Unit in DG Relex to mainstream conflict prevention and foster a culture of prevention by increasing its resources, personnel and ensuring that delegations have staff capacity who are trained and have experience in conflict sensitive development. Develop more effective peace and conflict impact assessments, which extend beyond those used in development programmes to all sectors, including the trade sector. Incorporate guidance on engaging civil society in conflict-affected areas and for conflict prevention and peace building in forthcoming guidelines for Commission staff on working with civil society, and provide necessary funding. Further integrate crisis management with conflict prevention capacities to serve and strengthen their short, medium and long- term impact. To this end, civilian and military planning in the EU should be more integrated and the Commission should be made an equal partner in the planning process to enhance the impact of civilian actions in crisis situations. Enhance the role of the European Parliament and national parliaments in scrutinising CFSP and ESDP by assessing how CFSP and ESDP have contributed to the stated goal of conflict prevention. eg the council should be obliged to transmit all public documents in the field of CFSP and ESDP to the EU Affairs, Foreign Affairs and Defence committees in all member states. 28 EUROPE IN THE WORLD

1 Within the framework of this paper, the term conflict prevention will refer to actions taken over the medium and longer term as well as the short term. In this sense, it will encompass the Commission s definitions for both conflict prevention and peace building. 2 This paper draws heavily on a recent paper published by Saferworld and International Alert entitled, Ensuring progress in the prevention of violent conflict: Priorities for the Greek and Italian EU Presidencies, 2003. It also reflects the position paper put forward by the European Peace Building Liaison Office (EPLO) on the Convention entitled, Building conflict prevention into the future of Europe, 2002. 3 The four civilian areas of crisis management identified at the Feira Council were; police, rule of law, civilian administration and civil protection. 4 The instruments of conflict prevention within the EU are located in pillar one (development cooperation, trade policies etc.), within pillar two (through the CFSP), and pillar three (Justice and Home Affairs) 5 Further recommendations can be found in the joint Saferworld/International Alert paper entitled Ensuring progress in the prevention of violent conflict: priorities for the Greek and Italian EU Presidencies, 2003 and the EPLO paper Building conflict prevention into the future of Europe, 2002. EU CONFLICT 29