Post Conflict Reconstruction and the Resurgence of Supposedly Resolved Territorial Conflicts Essay Example for Free

Post Conflict Reconstruction and the Resurgence of Supposedly Resolved Territorial Conflicts Essay Beyond the rhetoric of traditional causes of conflicts which intermittently are also at the root cause of African territorial civil conflicts, this paper examines the question as to why conflict resurges in states where conflict has previously been resolved. From the perspective of two major theoretical frameworks in International Relations: Liberalism and Realism, this paper argues that mechanisms for conflict resolution are often short-termed and often not home-groomed to accommodate the needs of citizens emanating from a civil war. Liberals argue that this is primarily a failure of cooperation between external and internal actors or stakeholders in the peace process. To them, this lack of cooperation generates economic problems and inhibits mistrust which is the embryo for conflict resurgence. In contrast conflict resolution fails primarily as a result of factors emphasized by Realism. The conflict may not have been ripe for resolution because the practical meaning of recognition revealed large gaps between the ways that the parties defined their core interests. Against this background and given the depth of antagonism between the DRC government and MONUC on the one hand and rebel movements on the other, economic wealth of the Congo has failed to generate support for the peace process. Instead, it increased friction and placed additional political obstacles in the way of compromise. The paper also examines the potency of peacekeeping as a vehicle for conflict resolution. It argues that the design and conceptualization of peacekeeping albeit structural challenges like inadequate resources, ill-equipped personnel and lack of a clearly defined and sustainable vision are at the bedrock of cyclical conflicts. In examining the role of MONUC and other interveners in the Congolese peace process, the paper engages a conceptual thesis which seeks to clarify the difference between peacekeeping as a mediator, meddler and interventionist in African civil conflicts. This clarification will inform conceptual thinking on the potency of peacekeeping as a vehicle for the resolution of civil conflicts. The conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is one demonstration of the fragile nature of post conflict reconstruction and speaks to the need to step-up conflict prevention strategies to meet current challenges which have given rise to new trajectories to territorial conflicts in Africa. Despite deploying a Peace Mission to the Congo (ONUC)[1] in the 1960s, and despite currently harboring the largest and highest funded United Nations Peace Operation (MONUC);[2] the United Nations (UN) is still finding it difficult to bring an end to the territorial conflict in what is regarded as the site for the world’s worst humanitarian conflict. The conflict, therefore, seems to protract with each renewed effort to resolve it. Following field visits, extensive reading on the Congo and interviews with conflict analysts and residents of the DRC, this paper assesses the viability of peacekeeping as a measure for preventing the resurgence of new territorial conflict. While most interviewed are of the view that the challenges of the DRC peace process are enormous and complex, this paper interrogates the role of MONUC as a conflict prevention mechanism, and its effectiveness in sustainable peacebuilding in the Great Lakes region. The paper enriches conceptual thinking with the view that peacekeeping as a form of external intervention has the capacity to support fragile states in their peace building process, and to check prospective territorial conflicts if certain requirements are met. Preliminary investigations indicate that, contrary to previous research which posited political, natural resource and cultural underpinnings as causes of the current DRC conflict, the lack of a clearly defined plan to stop hostilities in the East can largely be accountable for the cyclical violence. Contrary to expectation that following the 2006 DRC election, the fragile Congolese state had attained sovereign maturity to govern itself with limited external support, this paper posits the need for dedicated and timely funding to a new mediator who will engage a five-phased peacebuilding process which will re-orientate existent theoretical and pragmatic processes of conflict prevention, and define succinctly, through policy recommendations, a new direction for the prevention of territorial conflicts. Following this introduction, the next section will explore the causes of territorial conflicts in Africa and elsewhere. This section engages a brief differentiation between causes of conflicts and causes of conflict resurgence with the view of demonstrating that if one cannot prima facie understand the causes of conflict, its resolution attempts will be flawed and such attempts will serve as the corner stone on which prospective conflicts will be erected. Section two will engage a theoretical overview of causes of conflict resurgence. This section will examine causes of conflict resurgence as propounded by two main schools of thought of International Relations: Realism and Liberalism. Following this, tools of conflict resolution will reviewed with principal focus on peacekeeping. The Section will trickle down to a case specific analysis of whether peacekeeping as a tool for conflict resolution is a byproduct of intervention or mediation, and whether in the exercise of their craft, peacekeepers qualify to be called mediators or would be considered meddlers. This section argues that, between 1999 to 2006 when the first democratic election in the Congo was organized, MONUC could well be considered as a mediator, but following that period, MONUC till date (July 2006 to 2010) she is a meddler in the peace process which is largely driven by the rapprochement that was reached between the DRC and Uganda on the one hand, and the DRC and Rwanda on the other. Causes of territorial Conflicts in Africa There are contending theories as to the causes of territorial conflicts. Conflicts seem to have a litany of literature compared to other subsidiary topics of International Affairs and African studies. Scholars have thus far not been able to see the divide between causes of territorial conflicts and conflicts which ensue from the impotency of mechanisms tailored to resolve them. As a result, there is no dearth of literature on the causes of conflicts but one hardly finds any one who has contended that an ineffective resolution strategy could spark new trajectories to conflict. Existing literature on causes of conflict is sometimes limited in scope to address on causes in particular. Adekeye Adebajo has articulated political and cultural underpinnings to be responsible for conflicts. 3] This could hold true for the Sierra Leone conflict but in the face of global adversities, his speculations stand to be criticized because other conflicts like the Rwandan genocide emanate from imbalances in the distribution of economic, political and social resources. Moreover, the ongoing Sudanese conflicts have religious/and or ethnic undertones with no element of cultural or political formulations which equally go along way to excavate the lacunae in Adekeye’s speculations. Paul Collier holds the view that conflicts are fuelled by economic considerations. He posits that most rebel organizations cling onto the idea of grievances in order to elicit more public support for their cause. In his hypothesis, he contemplates that a state with superfluous resources, increasing working-age population, and high unemployment rate is most likely to harbor conflict. His hypothesis, though true for many conflicts that have plagued Africa does not explain other cases in Africa. For instance, former British trusteeship of Cameroon fondly known as Anglophone Cameroon has been wailing for a fair share of economic, political, social and natural resources of the country. Despite this, discontentment has not resulted to war or any from of concrete violence as has occurred in other countries. This phenomenon consequently makes Collier’s assertions fluid. Summarily, Collier, Eboe Hutchful and Kwesi Aning argue that there are countries that have experienced conflict where natural resources were not articulated as the source of the conflict. They cited the examples of Chad and Ethiopia. [5] They acknowledged that some conflicts have been fueled by purely non-resource driven motives resulted. This is true with the cases of Angola, Afghanistan and Sudan. They, however, conceded to the fact that in the conflicts in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) resources were one of the stimulants among other elements. They tried to strike a balance by postulating that the end of the Cold War culminated in the proliferation of arms, and ineffective post conflict demilitarization, demobilization, and reintegration of ex-combatants which culminated in an outburst of wary and distressed combatants resulting several coup detat putsch attempts. While one may agree with the grievance theory, the million dollar question is what are people aggrieved about as to resort to conflicts, destruction of property, murder and assassinations? Is it about Governance? Is it distribution of resources? The answer is definitely far from the propositions of the aforementioned scholars. Because some countries have resource crisis and mismanagement, repressive regimes, and poor governance, but know no conflict. This therefore suggests that there is yet an unknown cause of conflict, and this cause is probably one that cuts across all conflicts. The present paper contemplates that inefficacies in the mechanisms for resolving these conflicts could be the brain-child behind the cyclical resurgence of conflicts in states previously hit by territorial civil wars. William Reno on his part contends that internal warfare is motivated by economic considerations especially with regard to the intensification of transitional commerce. He argues that there is a relationship between corruption and politics. According to Reno, conflict is bound to rise where a ruler makes life uncomfortable for his citizens by encouraging the search of his espionage as a means of escaping from squalid conditions. Reno in his postulations contemplates that the absence of good governance engenders politics as a cause of conflict. [8] William Zartman on his part contemplates that the increase in conflict is orchestrated by the collapse of state structure. [9] While one may agree with the collapse of state theory, the lotto question is: What drives the leaders to run the state aground? Keith Somerville, in his view tries to locate the source of conflict within the geopolitical map of Africa, which was bequeathed to it by the colonial powers. He contends that the colonial boundaries and state lines have led to the potpourri of people who hitherto had never before mixed as a group. [10] This articulation is paradoxical. While it means that even if the boundaries that existed in the pre-colonial time were maintained, there could still exist though at different levels, and with different target. [11] The diverse schools of thought examined above have attempted an investigation into the causes of conflict. They have posited economic underpinnings, lack of good governance, and disintegration of state institutions, religious and ethnic differences, corruption and colonial imprints. The opinions are not quite erroneous but fail to see ultimately that conflicts emanate because the global village appears to be in consonance with the fact that peacekeeping is the first port of resort for conflict resolution. Moreover, the fact that the problems postulated by the above authors have engendered conflicts in some areas and not in some despite the presence of similar factors suggest that there is more to conflict than has been articulated by contemporary research on the subject matter. The present paper contemplates that inefficacies in the dispute resolution machinery incubate further conflicts. This paper contemplates that if peacekeeping tools are tailored to empower stakeholders to a peace process, conflicts will be resolved before they escalate. On the contrast between causes of conflicts and causes of conflict resurgence, it should be noted that if conflicts are not prima facie mastered, it will be difficult to seamstress right solutions to them. As a result conflicts tend to hatch new and probably even more complicated dimensions to it.