Regional Security

The Capacity of International Organizations

Rodrigo Tavares

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2009
• Print ISBN: 9780415483407
• eBook ISBN: 9781135257750
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: International Relations
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Regional organizations are an inescapable feature of global politics. Virtually all countries in the world are members of at least one regional or other intergovernmental organization.

The involvement of international organizations in the realm of regional peace and security, and their cooperation in this domain with the United Nations, has reached an unprecedented level. Regional organizations have traditionally been formed around economic, political, or environmental objectives, however, over the last decades these organizations have gradually penetrated into the security sphere and developed their capacities in conflict prevention, peacekeeping, or post-war reconstruction.

In Europe, Africa, Asia, or the Americas, regional and other intergovernmental organizations have been concurrently empowered by the UN and their own member states to maintain peace and security. Despite suffering from important discrepancies in both their mandates and capacities, regional organizations have become indisputable actors that play a role from the outbreak of a crisis to the reconstruction efforts in the aftermath of a conflict

Presenting the most up-to-date critical and comparative analysis of the major regional security institutions, assessing a wide range of regional organizations and providing an accessible and comprehensive guide to 11 key organizations, this book is the first systematic study of the capacities of the most recognized intergovernmental organizations with a security mandate. Regional Security is essential reading for all students of international organizations, peace and security studies and global governance.

1
International organizations in regional security

The realm of international relations comprises today not only states and global regimes such as the United Nations, but also many international organizations with a mandate in regional peace and security. Although these organizations, such as the AU, the OAS, the EU, or NATO have made significant headway over the last decade and are regarded as key actors in the prevention and resolution of conflicts, their role remains under-studied. How have they become prominent security actors? What are their comparative advantages and disadvantages? What are the implications for the United Nations as the prime actor responsible for peace and security? What are the challenges ahead?

The interest shown by policy-makers in regional organizations is fairly recent and it has been spurred by some changes in the global scene. The first is the realization that the majority of threats and security problems are primarily regional rather than local, national, or global.¹ Today it is difficult to envision a security problem that originates and is neutralized strictly within the confines of a single state. Be it inter-state or intra-state armed conflict, proliferation of deadly diseases, illegal immigration, or failed states, contemporary threats usually have a regional pattern that calls for regional mechanisms to confront them. Second, although the sovereignty axiom is still prominent, states— seduced by the potentially positive effects of economic integration and suffering the effects of globalization—are showing signs of being less orthodox and more malleable about external interventions. With increased frequency, humanitarian norms have been the source of calls for intervention to halt or prevent gross violations of human rights.

Third, regional institutions have been encouraged to take on a security mandate as a way to cope with the frailty of the United Nations. In the past, mostly in the context of the Cold War, regional institutions and regional conflicts were subordinated to the particular interest of the superpowers.² As former UN Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali stated in the 1992 Agenda for Peace, “the Cold War impaired the proper use of Chapter VIII and indeed, in that era, regional arrangements worked on occasion against resolving disputes in the manner foreseen in the Charter.” This judgment seems justified as long as it was based on action by the OAS with regard to Cuba (1962) and the Dominican Republic (1965), the League of Arab States in Lebanon (1976–83), or the Organization of African Unity’s (OAU) action in Chad (1981).³ After the Cold War, however, a renewed interest in the global level and in the possibility of a new approach in terms of international peace was generated. Yet, the weak financial conditions of the United Nations, the poor record of its peacekeeping missions in the 1990s (e.g. UNPROFOR in the former Yugoslavia and UNOSOM in Somalia), and political pressure from Western powers for reform served as stumbling blocks on the UN’s road toward complete self-sufficiency in peace and security.⁴ This has been acknowledged even by the UN itself; on numerous occasions the secretary-general has recognized that the organization “lacks the capacity, resources and expertise” to address all the problems and therefore the support of regional organizations is “both necessary and desirable.”⁵ In 1994, the issuing of Presidential Decision Directive 25 (PDD-25) by President Bill Clinton was another blow to the universal aspirations of the UN. In the wake of the disastrous mission in Somalia, the directive prevented the United States from using peacekeeping operations as the centerpiece of its foreign policy. Interestingly, as a complement to America’s unilateral actions, it foresaw supporting the improvement of regional organizations’ peacekeeping capabilities. In 2000, this point was reinforced in PDD 71 of February 2000, which identified the strengthening of the capacity of regional organizations as a major objective.

It is clear today that the UN has neither enough resources nor political will to engage with all security problems. These impediments have, hence, paved the way for greater regional involvement. As Haas already pointed out during the Cold War, “regional security arrangements grow in direct proportion to disappointment with the UN collective security system.”⁶ The beginning of this renewed trend toward the regionalization of security mechanisms arrived with the Economic Community of West African Countries’ (ECOWAS) armed intervention in Liberia in 1990 (see Chapter 3). Liberated from the suffocating forces of the Cold War, West African states seized the opportunity to take responsibility for their own interests.

As a result of the growth of regional action, this book presents a critical account of the role and capacities of international organizations in the realm of regional peace and security.

The United Nations and international organizations in regional security

During the early stages of planning for the post-war world, some of the leaders, such as Winston Churchill, aspired to a reliance upon regional agencies as the “massive pillars” of the world system. But the final result was a fine balance between global and regional dynamics, with the United Nations—the supreme authority—making permissive concessions to regionalism.⁷ Regional bodies were not given exclusive jurisdiction over regional disputes, but they were given elbow room to deal with local disputes, and the Security Council was even urged to encourage and facilitate such efforts.

Until the end of the Cold War, however, regional agencies were far less active in the peaceful settlement of disputes than the framers of the Charter anticipated. The few active organizations (e.g. OAU, OAS, LAS) were not able to play any significant role in security issues. Today, however, the context is markedly different and there are approximately 38 international organizations that have a mandate and an interest in regional security (see Table 1.2), covering virtually the whole globe.⁸ From a UN perspective, the combination of an increased demand for security management and limited resources has made the development of relationships with regional bodies a necessity. The cooperation was, however, not explicitly ordained not even universally desired; rather it “came about in an improvised way and in response to specific regional situations.”⁹

Published at the end of the Cold War, when the new security environment was yearning for new actors and new approaches, the Agenda for Peace called for a greater involvement of regional organizations in UN activities. Both the Agenda for Peace and the Supplement to an Agenda for Peace highlighted the advantages and potential for the division of labor in using the regional arrangements for the mechanisms of peace (preventive diplomacy, peacekeeping, peacemaking and post-conflict peacebuilding).¹⁰ This proved to be a shifting moment. Even if the UN and its member states were not capable of adopting clear guidelines on the role and division of labor between the global and the regional bodies,¹¹ the 1990s witnessed a proliferation of declarations where the role of regional organizations was clearly acknowledged and stimulated. As an illustration, in early 1994 the secretary-general signaled his intention to develop “a set of guidelines governing cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations” and this was welcomed by the General Assembly.¹² Follow-up declarations have shied away, however, from clearly defining these practical guidelines.¹³

The escalating interest was complemented by several meetings between the UN and regional organizations. Since 1993, the UN Secretary-General has convened seven high-level meetings (HLMs) with regional organizations involved in security matters from all continents. The discussions have focused on challenges to international peace and security, the role of regional organizations in peacebuilding activities, and practical measures to promote greater coordination and cooperation in peacekeeping and peacebuilding. Symbolically, at the fifth HLM in July 2003 the secretary-general offered a “new vision of global security” that rested on a “network of effective and mutually-reinforcing multilateral mechanisms—regional and global.”¹⁴ At the sixth HLM in July 2005, the UN Secretary-General stated that strengthening the UN relationship with regional and other intergovernmental organizations was a critical part of the effort to reform the UN. This partnership, it was argued, should build on the “comparative strengths of each organization.”¹⁵ Interest in these meetings has grown considerably, as testified, inter alia, by the increase in attendance (see Table 1.1). Nevertheless, with the inauguration of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the new leadership at the Department of Political Affairs (DPA), the interest by the UN in multilateral regional cooperation has diminished. The high-level meetings have come to an end and will be replaced by a less formal and bureaucratic arrangement where the UN Secretary-General could recover his high profile and where the largest organizations will have more constraints in advancing their interests and agendas. At the time of writing, in early 2009, the arrangement that has been proposed in the UN secretariat is in the form of an annual retreat between the secretary-general and heads of regional organizations.

Next to these high-level meetings, the Security Council has also given more attention to regional organizations. From the first meeting in 2003 to 2008, the Security Council met seven times on the topic (including three times directly with regional organizations) even though the resolutions and presidential statements adopted have not proposed any substantial working plan nor led to any major breakthrough. For instance, the joint AU-UN panel set up to consider modalities for supporting AU peacekeeping operations (UNSC resolution 1809 of April 2008) submitted in December 2008 several recommendations.¹⁶ Although they were discussed in a Security Council meeting in March the following year, they have not yet made any fundamental headway.

Even if enthusiasm does not necessarily lead to commitment, the interest mustered in the frame of the meetings convened by the secretary-general and the Security Council led to important declarations. In March 2005, Kofi Annan’s Report In Larger Freedom: Towards Development,

Table 1.1 Meetings with regional organizations

Security and Human Rights for All proposed the introduction of memoranda of understanding between the UN and regional organizations in order to foster the exchange of information, expertise and resources, and reiterated the need to establish “effective regional and global intergovernmental institutions to mobilize and coordinate collective action.”¹⁷ Although this proposal had also been put forward the year before by the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, it has never been properly adopted. In 2006, the secretary-general’s report, Regional-Global Security Partnership: Challenges and Opportunities, which was meant to break new ground, emphasized that, “the opportunities before us lie in the establishment of a more effective partnership operating in close cooperation with the Security Council based on a clear division of labour that reflects the comparative advantage of each organization. As important is the development of a programme of action for capacity-building across the globe.”¹⁸ Despite the recurrent allusion to partnership, there is “a fundamental misconception, misunderstanding and misperception of what such partnership entail, and what should be the guiding principles of this relationship,”¹⁹ says Kwesi Anning, the author of the UN Secretary General report on the Relationship between the United Nations and Regional Organizations (footnote 18). The key question is hence to what extent an increased interaction between regional organizations and the UN can lead to a more efficient UN and even to a rethinking of multilateralism as we know it today. On the ground, cooperation between the UN and regional bodies—even without guiding principles—is indeed likely to increase. It may either involve operational support, whereby a regional organization provides some form of technical cooperation according to the requirements on the ground (e.g. UNMIK, KFOR,²⁰ UNPROFOR); joint operation, where the staffing, direction, and financing are to be shared between the UN and a regional body (e.g. MICIVIH and UNAMID); or legitimization, where the UN only provides legal authorization for the deployment of the mission.

The UN Charter and international organizations

The UN has widely expressed the view that regional organizations complement—and not contest—the UN system. In part, this stance stems from a reading of Chapter VIII of the UN Charter which deals with “regional agencies and arrangements.” Indeed, the Charter authorizes the regional bodies to engage in the peaceful settlement of local disputes (art. 52) before referring them to the Security Council, or with peace enforcement after Security Council authorization (art. 53). But the ambiguous content of Chapter VIII has sparked fundamental questions. First, what is the distinction between a “regional agency” and a “regional arrangement”? Second, do all international organizations that have a security mandate operate under Chapter VIII? If not, what chapters legitimize their actions? In 1992, the Agenda for Peace underlined that “the Charter deliberately provides no precise definition of regional arrangements and agencies, thus allowing useful flexibility for undertakings by a group of States to deal with a matter appropriate for regional action which also could contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security.”²¹ The “usefulness” of this ambiguity has, however, been put in question by empirical reality. Often organizations that are neither regional nor have a mandate to resolve “local disputes” have hijacked Chapter VIII in order to receive a band-aid of legitimacy. Others have renounced their own regional responsibility, causing conflicts to escalate and unaccountability to reign. There is, therefore, a need to inject some clarity into this political ambivalence.

The distinction between the concepts of “agency” and “arrangement” concerns the degree of formality of the entit...

Table of contents

• Routledge Global Institutions
• Contents
• Illustrations
• Foreword by the series editors
• Foreword by B. Lynn Pascoe
• Acknowledgments
• Abbreviations
• Introduction
• 1 International organizations in regional security
• Part I Africa
• Part II Americas
• Part III Asia
• Part IV Europe
• Notes
• Annotated bibliography
• Index