Peacebuilding in UN Peacekeeping Exit Strategies: Organized Hypocrisy and Institutional Reform

Abstract

This article explores the relationship between the concept of ‘organized hypocrisy’ and institutional reform in UN peacekeeping. It first demonstrates how the organized hypocrisy in exit strategies arose from the discrepancy between rhetoric, peacekeeping mandates and actions in the field. The analysis then shows how, as a response to organized hypocrisy, peacebuilding replaced the election-based approach of exit strategies from the early 1990s. By evaluating the institutionalization of peacebuilding, the study reveals the hypocritical potential of reform; complex mission mandates, as well as the Peacebuilding Commission, exhibit elements of counter-coupled organized hypocrisy and meta-hypocrisy that remain unresolved.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their feedback, and Marcel Heberlein, Monika Heupel, Thomas Risse and Ursula Schröder for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this article. I gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the German Academic Exchange Foundation for the field research and thank Nathaniel Barron and Mary Bibra-Kelley for linguistic advice.

Notes

Stephen John Stedman, Donald Rothchild and Elizabeth M. Cousens (eds), Ending Civil Wars: The Implementation of Peace Agreements, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2002; Roland Paris, At War's End: Building Peace After Civil Conflict, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Gideon Rose, ‘The Exit Strategy Delusion’, Foreign Affairs, Vol.77, No.1, 1998, pp.56–67; Benjamin Reilly, ‘Elections in Post-Conflict Scenarios: Constraints and Dangers’, International Peacekeeping, Vol.9, No.2, 2002, pp.118–39.

Throughout this analysis, the terms ‘peacekeeping’ and ‘peace operation’ are used interchangeably as far as missions after 1990 are concerned. Missions of the pre-1990 type are termed ‘traditional peacekeeping’. For an overview of the different peacekeeping concepts see Alex J. Bellamy, Paul Williams and Stuart Griffin, Understanding Peacekeeping, Cambridge: Polity, 2004; Paul F. Diehl, Peace Operations, Cambridge: Polity, 2008.

See, Larry Diamond, Juan Linz and Seymour Martin Lipset (eds), Democracy in Developing Countries, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1989; Roland Paris, ‘Peacebuilding and the Limits of Liberal Internationalism’, International Security, Vol.22, No.2, 1997, pp.54–89; Krishna Kumar (ed.), Postconflict Elections, Democratization and International Assistance, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1998.

See William J. Durch, ‘Are We Learning Yet? The Long Road to Applying Best Practices’, in Durch (ed.) Twenty-First-Century Peace Operations, Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace, 2006, pp.573–608; Simon Chesterman, You, the People: The United Nations, Transitional Administration, and State-Building, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004, p.205; Paris (see n.1 above), pp.19, 139.

Richard Caplan, ‘After Exit: Successor Missions and Peace Consolidation’, Civil Wars, Vol.8, No.3&4, 2006, pp.253–67.

Michael Lipson, ‘Peacekeeping: Organized Hypocrisy?’, European Journal of International Relations, Vol.13, No.5, 2007, pp.5–34. The concept has its origins in organizational theory, e.g. Nils Brunsson, The Organization of Hypocrisy: Talk, Decision and Actions in Organizations. Copenhagen: Business School Press, 2006.

Durch (see n.5 above); Paris (see n.1 above).

See, Michael Barnett and Martha Finnemore, ‘The Politics, Power, and Pathologies of International Organizations’, International Organization, Vol.53, No.4, 1999, pp.699–732; Thorsten Benner, Stephan Mergenthaler and Philipp Rotmann, ‘Internationale Bürokratien und Organisationslernen: Konturen einer Forschungsagenda’ [‘International Bureaucracies and Organizational Learning: Outline of a Research Agenda’], Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, Vol.16, No.2, 2009, pp.203–36.

Interviews were conducted with UN staff in the peacekeeping bureaucracy, member state representatives, and members of think-tanks working on the issue.

On the emergence of the PBC, see e.g., C.S.R. Murthy, ‘New Phase in UN Reforms: Establishment of the Peacebuilding Commission and Human Rights Council’, International Studies, Vol.44, No.1, 2007, pp.39–56.

See Thorsten Benner, Stephan Mergenthaler and Philipp Rotmann, The New World of UN Peace Operations. Learning to Build Peace?, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011; Lise Morjé Howard, UN Peacekeeping in Civil Wars, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Brunsson (see n.7 above); Lipson (see n.7 above). In contrast to counter-coupling, decoupling merely describes the lack of connectedness between rhetoric, decisions and actions, and is not regarded as an indicator for organized hypocrisy.

Catherine Weaver, Hypocrisy Trap: The World Bank and the Poverty of Reform, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008.

Lipson (see n.7 above), p.24.

Philip Cunliffe, ‘The Politics of Global Governance in UN Peacekeeping’, International Peacekeeping, Vol.16, No.3, 2009, pp.323–36; Robert Egnell, ‘The Organised Hypocrisy of International State-building’, Conflict, Security & Development, Vol.10, No.4, 2010, pp.465–91.

Note that the negative connotation of hypocrisy only applies to unitary actors, Stephen D. Krasner, Sovereignty:Organized Hypocrisy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999.

See Edward Newman and Roland Rich (eds), The UN Role in Promoting Democracy: Between Ideals and Reality, Tokyo: UN University Press, 2004.

Durch (see n.5 above); William J. Durch, Victoria K. Holt, Caroline R. Earle and Moira K. Shanahan, The Brahimi Report and the Future of UN Peace Operations, Washington, DC: Henry L. Stimson Center, 2003; Chesterman (see n.5 above), p.205; Richard Caplan, ‘Chapter 10: Exit Strategies’, in Richard Caplan (ed.), International Governance of War-Torn Territories: Rule and Reconstruction, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, pp.212–29.

This counts successor missions launched in the same country as one mission (e.g. Somalia I and II).

UNAVEM II in Angola, ONUSAL in El Salvador, UNTAC in Cambodia, ONUMOZ in Mozambique, UNOMIL in Liberia, UNMIH in Haiti, UNAMIR in Rwanda, and UNMOT in Tadjikistan; for all mandates including follow-on missions, see UN Peacekeeping (at:www.un.org/en/peacekeeping).

Dominik Zaum, ‘The Norms and Politics of Exit: Ending Postconflict Transitional Administrations’, Ethics & International Affairs, Vol.23, No.2, 2009, pp.189–208.

See, UN doc., S/Res/696, 30 May 1991.

Angola UNAVEM II Background, 29 Mar. 2011 (at: www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/past/Unavem2/UnavemIIB.htm).

Chesterman (see n.5 above), ch.7.

Gwinyayi Albert Dzinesa, ‘A Comparative Perspective of UN Peacekeeping in Angola and Namibia’, International Peacekeeping, Vol.11, No.4, 2004, pp.644–63.

See, UN doc., S/Res/745, 28 Feb. 1992.

Sorpong Peou, ‘The UN's Modest Impact on Cambodia's Democracy’, in Newman and Rich (see n.18 above), pp.258–81.

See, UN doc., S/Res/872, para. 6., 5 Oct. 1993.

See, UN doc., S/Res/832, para. 5., 27 May 1993.

Interview by author with David Harland, DPKO, 2 Dec. 2009. Available troops and resources decreased continually until 2000, see Richard Gowan, ‘UN Peace Operations: Operational Expansion and Political Fragmentation’, in Volker Rittberger and Martina Fischer (eds), Strategies for Peace: Contributions of International Organizations, States and Non-State Actors, Opladen: Barbara Budrich, 2008, pp.109–28; Bellamy et al. (see n.3 above), pp.83–5.

Egnell (see n.16 above), pp.484–6.

See, UN doc., SC/6951, 15 Nov. 2000.

See, UN doc., S/2001/905, 25 Sept. 2001; Salman Ahmed, Paul Keating and Ugo Solinas, ‘Shaping the Future of UN Peace Operations: Is there a Doctrine in the House?’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Vol.2, No.1, 2007, pp.11–28.

See, UN doc., SC/9583, 23 Jan. 2009, and UN doc., SC/9860, 12 Feb. 2010.

See e.g. UN doc., S/Res/1063, 28 June 1996.

UNMOT in Tadjikistan (2000), UNAMSIL in Sierra Leone, ONUB in Burundi, UNMIS in the Sudan, UNMIT in Timor-Leste.

See, UN doc., S/PRST/2000/9, 21 Mar. 2000.

See, UN doc., S/2000/518, 26 May 2000 and UN doc., S/2000/519, 1 June 2000.

See, UN doc., S/ Res/1270, 22 Oct. 1999.

See, UN doc., S/Res/1346, para. 58, 30 Mar. 2001.

See, UN doc., S/Res/1537, 30 Mar. 2004.

See, UN doc., S/Res/1620, 31 Aug. 2005.

See, UN doc., S/Res/1271, 22 Oct. 1999.

See, UN doc., S/2009/627, 8 Dec. 2009.

See, UN doc., S/Res/1230, para. 17, 12 Feb. 1999; UN doc., S/Res/1277, 30 Nov. 1999; UN doc., S/Res/1537, 30 March 2004; UN doc., S/Res/1573 para. 3, 5, 16 Nov. 2004.

Frédéric Mégret and Florian Hoffmann, ‘The UN as a Human Rights Violator? Some Reflections on the United Nations Changing Human Rights Responsibilities’, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol.25, No.2, 2003, pp.314–42.

Jarat Chopra, ‘Building State Failure in East Timor’, Development and Change Vol.33, No.5, 2002, pp.979–1000.

UN Secretariat, ‘Policy Committee of the Secretary-General: Integrated Missions Planning Process (IMPP) Guidelines’, approved 13 June 2006 (at: www.undg.org/docs/9907/IMPP-Revised-Guidelines-130606.pdf).

See, UN doc., S/2001/394, 20 Apr. 2001; Richard Gowan, ‘The Strategic Context: Peacekeeping in Crisis, 2006–08’, International Peacekeeping, Vol.15, No.4, 2008, pp.453–69; UN doc., S/2001/394, 20 Apr. 2001.

See, UN doc., A/55/305–S/2000/809, 21 Aug. 2000.

Ibid.

United Nations Department for Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO), ‘United Nations Peacekeeping Operations. Principles and Guidelines’, New York: United Nations, 2008, ch.10 (at: http://pbpu.unlb.org/pbps/library/Capstone_Doctrine_ENG.pdf).

Lipson (see n.7 above), p.24.

Zaum (see n.22 above); Egnell (see n.16 above).

See, Under Secretary-General Jean-Marie Guéhenno's press conference statement, 10 Sept. 2011 (at: www.un.org/ar/peacekeeping/articles/pr_JMG.pdf); Andrew Sinclair, ‘Strategic Trends, Dilemmas, and Developments in Global Peace Operations’, Journal of International Peace Operations, Vol.7, No.1, 2011, pp.7–8. In contrast to the institutional fragmentation that characterizes the political struggle between mandating and implementing member states, the same institutional body (the SC) decides on peacekeeping finance and mandates, which indeed indicates organized hypocrisy (Cunliffe (see n.16 above)).

Michael Lipson, ‘Performance Under Ambiguity: International Organization Performance in UN Peacekeeping’, Review of International Organizations, Vol.5, 2010, pp.249–84. See also Under Secretary-General Alain Le Roy's statement, Special Committee for Peacekeeping, 23 Feb. 2009 (at: www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/articles/article230209.htm).

United Nations, ‘A Comprehensive Strategy to Eliminate Future Sexual Exploitation and Abuse in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations’ [Zeid Report], 2005, UN doc., A/59/710.

Egnell (see n.16 above).

United Nations Peacekeeping, The ‘New Horizon’ Process, 26 Apr. 2011 (at: www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/newhorizon.shtml).

Interview by author with Rebecca Jovin, DPKO Peacekeeping Best Practices Section, 10 Dec. 2009.

See, UN doc., GA/SPD/435, 23 Oct. 2009.

Lipson (see n.57 above), p.265; Gowan (see n.50 above).

Other sources of dysfunction are miscalculation, leadership problems or non-compliance due to rule ambiguity, lack of capacities, and delays; see Lipson (see n.7 above), p.25.

On the positive implications of meta-hypocrisy see Lipson (see n.7 above), p.23.

See, UN doc., A/Res/60/180, 30 Dec. 2005; UN doc., S/Res/1645, 20 Dec. 2005.

See Jenna Slotin, ‘What Next for the UN Peacebuilding Commission?’, Comment&Analysis, New York, International Peace Institute, 2010; Interview by author with Richard Gowan, Center for International Cooperation, New York University, 23 Nov. 2009.

Some authors argue that the PBC is not only a body institutionalizing peacebuilding, but also engaging in norm diffusion towards its members and other UN actors; see Rob Jenkins, ‘The UN Peacebuilding Commission and the Dissemination of International Norms’, Working Paper 38, New York: Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies, City University of New York, 2008.

See Ahmed et al. (see n.34 above).

See, UN doc., SC/9860, 12 Feb. 2010.

See, UN doc., S/PV.6270, 12 Feb. 2010.

See, UN doc., A/64/868–S/2010/393, 21 July 2010.

Ibid, para.21.

Ibid, para.46.

Beth A. Simmons, Frank Dobbin and Geoffrey Garrett, ‘Introduction: The International Diffusion of Liberalism’, International Organization, Vol.60, No.4, 2006, pp.781–810; Monika Heupel and Michael Zürn, ‘Internationale Organisationen und der Schutz fundamentaler Rechte von Individuen: Skizze eines Forschungsprojekts’ [‘International Organizations and the Protection of Fundamental Individual Rights’], Discussion Paper SP IV 2010–303, Berlin, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung, 2010.