The United Nations Peace Operations And The Quest For Sustainable Peace And Security In The Horn Of Africa(1992-2020)

As many scholars argue,the United Nations peace operation often produces positive effects in managing armed conflicts.Peacekeeping forces are deployed to contain the conflict's outbreak,escalation,continuation,and recurrence.They can play an essential role in providing a bridge to stability and eventual long-term peace and security.A peace operation helps conflicttorn countries create conditions for sustainable peace.Since the early 1990 s,it became a building block of the international community's response to international political crises.Eventually,the United Nations peace operation has broadened in scope and combined with peace-building in complex multidimensional operations that were deployed to manage intra-state conflict.As a result of the UN peace operation,many countries have transformed from conflict situations to sustainable peace and security.Nevertheless,despite the deployment of many UN peace operations in the Horn of Africa,the sub-region remained one of the most unstable parts of the world.The study seeks to identify why the UN peace operations were ineffective and inefficient in promoting and maintaining lasting peace and security in the Horn of Africa.It also pursues to evaluate the missions' effectiveness in improving the host countries' peace and security situations and explore the factors that hindered their successes.With this aim in mind,the main question that guides this research is: Why were the UN peace operations in the Horn of Africa unable to attain the desired results in promoting sustainable peace and security? Two sub-questions follow it: how effective were the operations in accomplishing the mandate and promoting sustainable peace and security? And,what were the factors that hindered the success of the peace operations in promoting sustainable peace and security?This study explores the links between the dynamics of institutional legitimacy(local and international)and the effectiveness and efficiency of peace operations to answer these research questions.It tries to demonstrate how the legitimacy of the peace operations in the Horn of Africa determined the outcome of the operations,applying legitimacy theory as a guideline.The perspective on the local and international legitimacy of an institution used in this study draws on the works of Jeni Whalan and Ian Hurd,respectively.The legitimacy theory argues that international institutions can obtain states' compliance through three different mechanisms: coercion,inducement,and legitimacy.An actor complies with an institution,its rules,and actions when the rule enforcement body uses a coercive approach,or the actor believes the rule is in line with its own self-interest,or the actor perceives the rule is legitimate and ought to be obeyed.Compliance generates a sense of belongingness,thus maximizes the actor's cooperation with and support to an institution and its rule if its source is legitimacy.Legitimacy enables institutions to function and achieve their objectives without too much reliance on the threat of coercion or inducements of self-interest.Several previous studies have shown that UN peace operations in the Horn of Africa have not achieved the desired results.In particular,the UN operation in Somalia ultimately failed to achieve its mandate.The UNAMID,a mission that costs the lives of many peacekeepers and a considerable amount of money,also failed to deliver the desired results.The United Nations Mission in South Sudan also was unable to avert and end conflicts and protect civilians.Many of the literature identified various factors from a material point of view as to why peace operations have not been able to ensure lasting peace and security of the host countries and the sub-region.This study argues that the main reason for the failure and inefficiencies of peace operations to ensure lasting peace and security was their inability to gain and maintain legitimacy.The UNSC's lack of legitimacy in the eyes of Africans was one of the reasons that limited the achievements of the peace operations.Most of the Security Council's agendas and decisions are about Africa,but Africa does not have a permanent representation in the Council.This no representation has its own impact on making African states reluctant to implement the Council's decisions,including resolutions on peace operations.The UN could deploy its mission coercively,but a peace operation against the real consent of the respective governments and people would not be successful.This has been proved in the peace operations in Somalia,Sudan,and South Sudan.Another factor was the lack of consensus among the Security Council's permanent members.The normative differences between the interventionists and non-interventionists undermined the legitimacy of the missions as well as the cooperation and support the missions sought from local and international actors.It had direct implications on the performances and outcomes of the peace operations in the Horn of Africa.The study also identified that the reluctance of the Western powers to provide political and financial support to the UN peace operations had a negative impact on the peace operations in the sub-region.This Western powers' reluctance directly affected the UN peace operations in the Horn of Africa,as most of the missions were established when they began to retreat.The unilateral intervention of the US and other regional powers in the internal conflicts in the sub-region had a damaging effect on the performances and outcomes of the peace operations.It had adverse effects by prolonging the conflicts and complicating the peace processes.The lack of regional and institutional cooperation also had its own impact on undermining the success of the peace operations in the sub-region.These factors had made the UN peace operations lose their local and international legitimacy and,subsequently,the cooperation and support the missions wanted to secure to achieve the set objectives.The study also explores the effectiveness and contributions of the peace operations to the peace and security of the host countries and the sub-region.Although the missions were not efficient in achieving the desired outcomes,they had their own contributions.The study finds that the missions have saved many lives due to their efforts to protect civilians and alleviate humanitarian crises.The UN mission in Somalia has saved hundreds of thousands of people from starvation.The Darfur Peace operation has also been able to save the lives of many Darfuris and protect them from physical abuse by providing security and daily patrols around the IDP camps.The UN mission in South Sudan also protected more than 200,000 IDPs by providing shelter and security in the peacekeeping camps.Despite these contributions,many civilians have been killed and physically abused,and millions have remained displaced because of the missions' inability to provide adequate and comprehensive protection to civilians.Thousands of civilians have been killed in clashes among Somali factions and between the Somali militias and the UN and US forces.UN and US's uncoordinated effort to capture or kill Aidid caused the killing of thousands of civilians and worsened the humanitarian crisis.The Darfur peace operation has been widely criticized for failing to intervene while warring parties attacked civilians.Many were killed,physically abused,and millions displaced due to the inability of UNAMID to protect civilians.UNMISS was also blamed for its failure to protect civilians while combatants repeatedly entered peacekeeping camps and attacked civilians.Its ability to provide protection to civilians in vulnerable areas was limited and weak.There are still millions of displaced people inside and outside the national territories of the host countries under critical social and economic situations.Thus,from the protection of civilians' point of view,the weaknesses of the missions are weighted over their success.One of the most critical responsibilities of the United Nations peace operations is ending conflicts and preventing their recurrence.In terms of reducing the intensity of conflict,all three missions were ineffective.The intensity of conflict in Somalia has dropped for some time due to the deployment of UNITAF and UNOSOM II.However,the situation dramatically changed,and the conflict escalated when the United Nations and the US forces launched an offense to capture or kill Aidid.Therefore,the UN mission in Somalia failed to de-escalate the conflict,and Somalia remained a hotbed of conflict for years.Likewise,although there was a tendency to reduce the intensity of conflict during the first few years of UNAMID's deployment in Darfur,the mission's contribution to ending the conflict was limited.Apart from fighting between political forces,inter-communal clashes continued unabated in the presence of the peacekeepers.UNMISS's experience in this regard was quite different.The deadliest and large-scale civil war broke out in its presence in the country.It failed to deter and control the civil war.The country is still suffering from conflicts between political groups and inter-communal conflicts.The ability of a peace operation to identify and resolve the root causes of conflict in the host country is vital to its success.Unless the root causes of the conflicts are sustainably resolved,civilians will not be protected,and conflicts cannot be ended sustainably.In this regard,the contributions of all three peace operations were very limited.Instead of finding a lasting solution to conflicts,the missions focused on solving the problems caused by the conflicts.The peacekeepers' primary focus in Somalia was to alleviate the effects of the humanitarian crisis rather than to find a lasting solution to the crisis.As a result,the mission was unable to achieve lasting peace and security despite repeated attempts to help the warring parties sign peace agreements.In Darfur,the mission focused on civilian protection and handling the humanitarian crisis rather than resolving the fundamental sources of the political crisis that caused the humanitarian crisis.The South Sudan Mission was originally tasked to assist the state-building efforts of the government and help the country move towards sustainable development and peace.However,after the outbreak of the civil war,its focus shifted to stabilization and civilian protection.In general,the contribution of UN peace operations to lasting peace and security in the Horn of Africa was insignificant.The host state's domestic politics highly constrained the UN peace operations.In peace operations,it is belligerents that end hostilities,and peacekeepers cannot force them to do so and make peace if they refuse.Even if the peacekeepers try to force them by peace enforcement missions,it would be costly in terms of resources,less effective,and high risk.Therefore,the role of local or national actors is vital for the effectiveness of the missions.The study assessed local actors' perceptions and found that they perceived the peace operations as inappropriate and less worthy.The governments of the host states and warlords(in the case of Somalia)refused to provide legitimacy to the UN missions.As a result,the missions lacked local cooperation and support.The Security Council applied a coercive approach to obtain compliance,which made the peace operation more expensive and complex.According to the theory of legitimacy,if an institution or a system relies entirely on a coercive approach to obtain compliance with its rules and actions,it needs to devote huge resources to enforcement.At the same time,it is expected to generate a low level of compliance.So,the study explored that the material and financial shortages would not be big issues for the ineffectiveness of the peace operations like UNAMID and UNMISS if the missions were successful in securing legitimacy.The missions also suffered from an international legitimacy deficit.International cooperation and support are crucial for the success of peace operations.According to legitimacy theory,any international institution needs to be accepted by states to accomplish its objectives effectively.Legitimacy deficits of institutions put the gains that supposedly come from international cooperation at risk.In this regard,the UN peace operations in the Horn of Africa lacked international cooperation and support as they have been deviating from the core principles of peace operations,disregarding state sovereignty,and are perceived incapable of achieving their core mandates.As a result,the missions were unable to obtain the necessary political and financial support to fulfill their goals,and finally,UNOSOM I and II had failed,and UNAMID and UNMISS became inefficient to achieve their intended objectives.This research uses a qualitative approach and the case study method to examine and investigate each case.The cases were assessed in terms of their effectiveness,legitimacy,and impact on peace and security in the host country as well as the sub-region.In order to assess the effectiveness of the peace operations,the study uses three criteria: protection of civilians,deescalation of the conflict's intensity,and the resolution of the underlying causes of the conflict.Data collection to these methods relies on primary and secondary sources.This dissertation is organized into seven chapters.Chapter one provides the study's background.It encompasses the research questions,research argument,review of previous literature,research methodology and design,case selection,the scope,and the significance of the study.Chapter two establishes the conceptual and theoretical foundations of the study.It discusses the UN peace operation's concepts,principles,and normative transformation.Terminologies and concepts related to peace operations had explained in detail to avoid ambiguity and confusion in the study.It also elucidates the explanatory advantages of legitimacy theory to examine the reasons for the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of the UN peace operations in the Horn of Africa.Chapter three analyzes the factors that undermined the effectiveness and efficiency of the peace operations in promoting sustainable peace and security in the host countries as well as the sub-region.It provides insightful evidence on how the legitimacy deficit of the UNSC in the views of the African countries,the lack of unanimity among the Security Council's permanent members,the reluctance of the Western powers to provide political and financial support to the United Nations peace operations,the inability of the Council to constrain its members and other actors from acting unilaterally,and the weak regional,institutional and interstate cooperation hindered the efficiency of the peace operations by examining each factor in detail.It also assesses the internal factors like the influence of the conflicts' and conflicting parties' nature and resistance of host state governments' in the performances and outcomes of the missions.Chapter four discusses the UN peace operations in Somalia.It investigates the effectiveness and contributions of the three missions(UNOSOM I,UNITAF,and UNOSOM II)in protecting civilians and improving humanitarian situations,de-escalating the intensity of the conflict,and finding political solutions for political crises.It assesses the local and international legitimacy of the missions and examines how the lack of legitimacy undermined the performances and outcomes of the peace operations.The national or local level factors undermining the missions' effectiveness have been discussed in this chapter.Chapter five explores the UN peace operation in Darfur,Sudan.The chapter examines the mission's effectiveness and contributions in protecting civilians,de-escalating the conflict's intensity,and finding political settlement among the warring parties.It tries to identify the significant achievements and failures of the mission in promoting peace and security in the country and the sub-region sustainably.The chapter also assesses the local and international legitimacy of the peace operation and how its legitimacy crises affected the performance and outcome of the mission.The chapter examines the national or local level factors undermining the missions' effectiveness.Chapter six focuses on the UN peace operation in South Sudan.This chapter assessed UNMISS in terms of its effectiveness in and contributions to the civilian protection and other humanitarian tasks,decreasing the intensity of the conflict,and the political settlement of the conflict.It also examines the local and international legitimacy of the mission and its impacts on the efficiency of the operation as well as the national or local level factors undermining the missions' effectiveness.Chapter seven provides a conclusion of the main arguments and findings of the study and possible recommendations for future improvements of UN peace operations.