斯德哥尔摩国际和平研究所-Multilateral-peace-operations-and-the-challenges-of-terrorism-and-violent-extremism_16页_537kb

Summary of Multilateral Peace Operations and the Challenges of Terrorism and Violent Extremism

I. Core Content

Multilateral peace operations are increasingly facing non-traditional security challenges such as terrorism and violent extremism, which transcend borders and are difficult to manage with traditional peacekeeping methods. These challenges are becoming more prevalent in conflict zones like Libya, Syria, and Yemen, prompting a reevaluation of the role of peace operations in addressing them.

The initiative "The New Geopolitics of Peace Operations III: Non-Traditional Security Challenges" was launched with support from Finland and co-sponsored by Ethiopia, in partnership with the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES). It seeks to enhance understanding of peace operations in relation to non-traditional security issues, including terrorism, violent extremism, irregular migration, piracy, organized crime, and environmental degradation.

The initiative includes five dialogue meetings, each focusing on a different non-traditional security challenge, with background papers to guide the discussion. The ultimate goal is to produce a final report that moves the discourse forward on the role of peace operations in these areas.

II. Key Concepts

• Terrorism and Violent Extremism: These are often used interchangeably, though the UN defines violent extremism as a condition conducive to terrorism. Both are seen as complex and multifaceted issues that require more than just military responses.
• CT (Counter-Terrorism): Refers to reactive measures aimed at containing, suppressing, or neutralizing existing terrorist threats. It typically involves military and law enforcement actions.
• P/CVE (Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism): Refers to proactive strategies targeting the drivers of violent extremism, such as lack of socio-economic opportunities, marginalization, poor governance, and human rights violations.

III. Contributions of Peace Operations

Peace operations can contribute to both CT and P/CVE in various ways:

1. Activities Addressing the Consequences of Terrorism and Violent Extremism

• Kinetic Operations: Some missions, like AMISOM and ISAF, have been involved in direct combat against terrorist groups.
• Intelligence and Surveillance: Peace operations use ISR capabilities to monitor and track terrorist activities.
• Capacity Building: Missions like RSM and EUTM support the development of national security forces.
• DDR (Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration): Programs aimed at rehabilitating former combatants, such as those supported by UNSOM, are considered part of P/CVE efforts.
• Rule of Law and Security: Peace operations help build institutional capacity in security and legal systems to combat terrorism.

2. Activities Addressing the Drivers of Terrorism and Violent Extremism

• Human Rights Monitoring: Peace operations report on human rights violations, which can be key drivers of extremism.
• Good Governance and Development: Missions support reforms in governance, development, and human rights to address root causes.
• Civil Society Engagement: Peace operations work with religious leaders, women's and youth groups to counter extremist narratives and promote inter-faith dialogue.
• Legal and Policy Support: Missions assist in developing national legislation and strategies to prevent and counter extremism.

IV. Main Views and Positions

• Shift from CT to P/CVE: There is a growing recognition that military CT alone is insufficient and may even be counterproductive. This has led to a policy shift towards P/CVE, which focuses on prevention and addressing underlying causes.
• Role of Peace Operations: While the UN maintains that peacekeeping operations should not engage in military CT, they can still contribute through capacity building, rule of law, and civil society engagement.
• Regional and Multilateral Collaboration: Regional organizations like the AU and EU are increasingly taking on roles in CT and P/CVE, often in collaboration with the UN.
• Debates and Concerns: There is ongoing debate about the necessity and implications of peace operations engaging more directly in CT and P/CVE. Critics warn of unintended consequences, including militarization and loss of impartiality.

V. Potential Implications

1. Militarization of Peace Operations

• Increased engagement in CT could lead to a greater reliance on military tactics, potentially undermining the preventive and developmental aspects of peace operations.
• Militarization may also reinforce the very drivers of terrorism and violent extremism, such as civilian casualties and reprisal attacks.

2. Impartiality Concerns

• Involvement in CT and P/CVE could compromise the impartiality of peace operations, especially if they are perceived as taking sides or supporting specific actors in the conflict.

3. Policy and Operational Challenges

• There is a need for a comprehensive strategy that integrates both CT and P/CVE.
• The UN Security Council remains divided on the extent of its support for regional CT initiatives, such as the MNJTF and JF-G5S, due to political and financial constraints.

VI. Conclusion

Multilateral peace operations are evolving to address the complex and multifaceted challenges of terrorism and violent extremism. While the UN remains cautious about direct military involvement, it increasingly recognizes the importance of integrating P/CVE into its broader peacebuilding efforts. The shift from CT to P/CVE reflects a broader understanding that long-term stability requires more than just military force; it demands a holistic approach that includes development, governance, and civil society engagement. However, this transition comes with significant challenges, including the risk of militarization and the need to maintain impartiality.