The African Union (AU) hosted the Africa Forum on Security Sector Reform (SSR) last week (24 – 26 November) in Addis Ababa, the conclusions of which were (taken from the AU report):

• National ownership cannot be imposed from outside. It must be home grown, taking into account broader needs of all stakeholders in a particular context, with a view to transforming rather than strengthening already broken security institutions. Participants took particular note of the role of informal/traditional/customary security and justice institutions and stressed the need to better integrate them into reform processes.
• The importance of political leadership in SSR processes. The need for political leadership was highlighted in all SSR stages including in the conception, resource mobilization, implementation, and coordination of national SSR processes, taking into account the fact that SSR can have far reaching political implications.
• Limited capacity was identified as a major challenge to building effective and accountable security and justice institutions in conflict and post-conflict contexts. Participants emphasized strengthening linkages between SSR and DDR efforts as well as effectively integrating them into broader development and good governance priorities for reconstruction. They also stressed the need for incorporating gender as part of the process and expected outcomes of reforms.
• African Union capacities in SSR need to be reinforced to better support the growing requests from its Member States. Participants highlighted the potential for technical SSR support that could be delivered by the African Union in light of the growing number of requests currently being directed to the AU by Member States. This support to Member States can only be delivered if there is adequate SSR capacity at the African Union.
• Coordination remains a key challenge to implement SSR effectively. While coordination of SSR is a national responsibility, in practice, countries emerging from conflict often lack the capacity to coordinate international assistance. Participants identified some good practices in coordination including joint situation and needs assessment by partners to support countries in formulating their own vision for reforming the security sector.
• Implementation of SSR must place an equal emphasis on the effectiveness of core security providers as well as their oversight and proper management. SSR involves not only building effective security institutions in a coherent manner, but it also involves laying down the foundations of good governance upon which they must stand. The latter remains a gap area for international support. However, the AU should not lose sight of the need to develop capacity to stop the violence and the atrocities in conflict areas before any SSR plans are put in place.
• Good security sector governance, oversight and management, including in the area of public financial management, should be key priority areas for international support. There is a need to rebalance processes and programmes from predominant focus on capacity building to equal prioritization of effective, efficient and accountable use of existing and planned resources invested in reform initiatives. Participants agreed that security sector reform could be a significant expenditure burden to countries, which if left unchecked may crowd out other development priorities. Participants noted that reforms should therefore, be supported by robust public financial management laws and policy frameworks in order for them to be accountable and sustainable. Participants also identified innovative approaches and tools for transparent human resource management and procurement.
• SSR is an important peace-building tool. SSR can enhance security for both the state and its people, bring peace and foster development and economic prosperity for all. Participants further identified important ingredients for success including inclusive structures for piloting reforms with the participation of civil society organizations and women. They further agreed on the need to build on quick wins that could lock-in momentum for long-term reforms.
• SSR is also a critical stabilization instrument. The ability of SSR to address underlying causes of conflict comes from its commitment to dialogue. Parties to conflict can find power sharing solutions on national security issues through inclusive dialogue that does not necessitate the continuation of violent conflict and tragic pursuit of purely military solutions. In this regard, SSR may be used as a political tool to address violent security challenges, in particular in stabilization contexts.
• The crucial role of regional and sub-regional organisations in SSR. Participants highlighted the important role that regional and sub-regional organisations can play in SSR processes in view of the cross-border nature of many peace and security challenges. At the same time, they noted the central role of the United Nations in all global peace and security issues, and the responsibilities of AU Member States to provide security for their own states and citizens.
• Focus on implementation of SSR activities on the ground. It was pointed out that the AU has developed numerous policy frameworks, but a number of these policies are not being effectively implemented. The call was made to focus on the implementation of the AU Policy Framework on SSR as the way forward. (see more at: http://www.peaceau.org/en/article/conclusions-of-the-africa-forum-on-security-sector-reform-ssr-addis-ababa-24-26-november-2014#sthash.f2eT4dOr.dpuf)

These conclusions correlate with previous posts on SSR on this SCID Blog as well as much literature on SSR and its principles (notably work by Sedra, Nathan, Donais etc as well as many policy papers e.g. by UN, OECD, DCAF). Particularly for those SCID students who have recently completed the SSR assignment on the divide between policy and practice, it would be interesting to hear ideas about how to put the principles and prerequisites of successful SSR –  local ownership, good governance, co-ordination, political and financial commitment, and leadership – into practice in novel ways or ways that might generate more success than has been seen to date. Is it time to consider prioritising principles or conceptually distinguishing between SSR endeavours and aims in different contexts? Does SSR endeavour to do too much (contribute to stabilisation, peacebuilding, development) or too little (continuing to focus on training and equipping), or ensure the buy-in of too many (posing co-ordination problems) or too few (engaging only those local actors who share the same ideas)? In the aftermath of conflict, in particular, will human security ever really dwarf concerns about territorial security? Is SSR a way of legitimising increased and expanded external intervention, rather than ostensible local engagement and ownership? Will steps forward be made by those external actors engaged in SSR, only by taking a step back (and genuinely promoting local ownership) or will other cherished principles suffer (what of gender equality, inclusion, affordability e.g.)?

Eleanor

The Department of Politics at the University of Leicester hosts regular research lectures and seminars, including on subjects related to conflict, security and international development. These are available to listen to on the Department’s SoundCloud. Of particular interest are:

• Dr Martin Smith (The Royal Military Academy Sandhurst), 14th May 2014
  How NATO Survived George Bush
• Dr Sam Raphael (co-founder of The Rendition Project), 19th March 2014
  The Rendition Project
• Prof Paul Rogers (University of Bradford), 5th February 2014
  Security by Remote Control

Best wishes, Eleanor

The latest issue of the Journal of Strategic Studies addresses the issue of UN peacekeeping and the use of force, considering how far this is removed from the UN’s original peacekeeping principles of consent, impartiality and the use of force only in self-defence. There is free access to the introductory article: Berdal, M. and Ucko, D. (2014) ‘The United Nations and the Use of Force: Between Promise and Peril’, Journal of Strategic Studies, 37(5): 665-673, DOI: 10.1080/01402390.2014.937803, which is accessible here or via: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2014.937803

Other articles are accessible via UoL’s online library (you will need to use your username and password): http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402390.2014.937803#.VGSHuf1yaUk

This is the sixth Online Guest Lecture by members of the SCID Panel of Experts. Chris Sharwood-Smith presents a lecture entitled ‘The United Nations Security Council’.

This Lecture addresses what the UN Security Council (UNSC) does in theory and in practice, including its historical context and methods of operation. It then considers various arguments and proposals for UNSC reform, and how various reform proposals have been responded to, before assessing the likelihood of reform in the near future.

Click on the link below to access Chris’ Lecture (it is large so it will take a while to download). Please submit any questions or comments within the next two weeks for Chris’ attention and/or discussion by other SCID Panel members, students and staff.

THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL – Chris Sharwood-Smith Guest Lecture

The Department of Criminology at the University of Leicester is establishing an Alumni Mentoring Scheme. The Scheme is designed to provide second and/or final year students with one-to-one mentoring in their chosen career from former University of Leicester students. The scheme is intended to give students the opportunity to gain early career insights by learning from someone already working in their desired field. Should any SCID student be interested in being a Mentor, either now or at any stage after graduation, please contact Jessica Waelchli (jw600@le.ac.uk).

The Department of Criminology is also in the process of developing new marketing brochures for its courses. We would be very grateful if any current or former SCID student, or any member of the Panel of Experts, wanted to share a few words about the SCID Course that could be included in the brochure. Marketing have specifically asked for comments from alumni, which would be very welcome. Should you have any comments at any stage, please either post them here or email me, Eleanor Gordon (eg132@le.ac.uk).

Finally, the university’s distance learning team are looking for distance learning students who would be willing to send a high resolution photo of the most unusual place where they have accessed their course material or engaged with their studies (with a few words). The photos will be used in promotion material, the aim of which is to show the diverse and flexible nature of distance learning. Clearly SCID students are likely to be among those in the most challenging and remote environments, so if you are happy to send a photo to me (eg132@le.ac.uk) it would be very much appreciated.

Thank you and best wishes, Eleanor

This is the fifth Online Guest Lecture by members of the SCID Panel of Experts. Malcolm Russell presents a lecture entitled ‘Post-conflict intervention: a 3D model’.

States used to be reluctant to take action inside the sovereign territory of another state unless they were at war with them, but it has now become an accepted international norm that there is a responsibility to protect civilians from excessive risk and to intervene where armed conflict crosses a certain threshold of acceptability.

Various international devices are used to legitimise such interventions and a rapid evolution has occurred in the past ten years since the Iraq intervention, that sees a more sophisticated and subtle approach. But still old problems remain. Intervening states assume primacy in much the same way they would have done had they been victors in a war. The perspective of the intervening state tends to lead the direction and high pace of the intervention, particularly in the early stabilisation phase as armed conflict starts to recede. The overall direction of transition is dictated by the intervening state’s world view but intervening states are not unitary actors and there are often, even with joint analysis and an integrated approach, conflicting claims and priorities between different parts of a state’s intervention apparatus and policy streams. This creates tensions and synergies which mask underlying problems of whether the planned and assumed intervention outcome is suitable, sustainable and sovereign in reflecting the views, needs and culture of the state in which the intervention takes place.

The rivalry between different aspects of the intervention and the assumption of the intervener’s values taking primacy and being appropriate to the needs of the local situation divert attention from true impact of the intervention. This is likely to result in unintended outcomes.

This lecture takes a 3D look at what this stabilisation phase of a post armed conflict intervention comprises and highlights some of these issues. This lecture also builds upon some of the issues and themes developed in Malcolm’s Symposium presentation – you can watch and listen to this presentation on this Blog (and in the SCID Course materials) and also read his paper in the recently published Reader, also available on this Blog and in the course materials.

Click on the link below to access Malcolm’s Lecture (it is large so it will take a while to download). Please submit any questions or comments within the next two weeks for Malcolm’s attention and/or discussion by other SCID Panel members, students and staff.

Post-conflict intervention – Malcolm Russell Guest Lecture

On 13 March 2014, the Department of Criminology at the University of Leicester hosted the first SCID Symposium. Ten members of the SCID Panel of Experts gave presentations on the theme of the Symposium – building security and justice in post-conflict environments. The broad range of papers presented at the Symposium addressed issues concerning stabilisation, state building, holistic security, Security Sector Reform, policing in post-conflict environments, transitional justice, community-based dispute resolution, and the value of conflict assessments. Papers were given by leading international experts on these issues with extensive first-hand experience of working in conflict and post-conflict environments. Presenters included former diplomats, retired senior police chiefs and military officers, government advisers, senior members of the legal profession, and senior officials in the UN system.

The papers presented are included in the SCID Reader – 2014 (bookmarked), which is also available on the Department website, as well as Course platforms (Blackboard and the iPad). The presentations given at the Symposium are also available to listen to and watch on the Department website, SCID Course platforms, and this Blog.

The videos of the presentations given at the 2014 SCID Symposium are now available. They have been uploaded to the individual posts below and in the Symposium folder on this Blog. They are also available on the Department website and on the Course platforms (Blackboard and the iPad).

Current SCID students are based in 34 countries, many in conflict-affected environments. The map gives some  indication of the global demographic of SCID students and the conflict-related nature of their work. The interactive map is located on Blackboard where students are invited to pin their locations. Aside from providing useful information, the map should be useful to many students who may relocate or go on mission during and after the Course, who wish to contact fellow students and alumni already in that location.

I’ve just had an article published in Stability Journal on ‘Security Sector Reform, Local Ownership and Community Engagement’ should anyone be interested in this subject: Gordon, E 2014. Security Sector Reform, Local Ownership and Community Engagement. Stability: International Journal of Security and Development 3(1):25, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/sta.dx

This summer, the very first students of the MSc programme in Security, Conflict and International Development (SCID) graduated.

SCID graduates Tim Ford and Stephen Coller attended the graduation ceremony held at the University of Leicester on 15 July 2014. Graduating with Merit and after 30+ years in law enforcement in the UK and internationally, Tim Ford is now looking to specialise in Security Sector Reform, and welcomes any opportunities in this regard. Stephen Coller continues his career with An Garda Siochana in Dublin, with whom he has been working for over 10 years, specialising in investigating Drug Supply/Distribution. Stephen also intends to use the MSc to further a career in the national/international arena, particularly in the field of drug control (ideally with UNODC). Anyone wishing to contact either Tim or Stephen, or any of the SCID alumni, can reply to this post or send me (eg132@le.ac.uk) a message which I can forward.

With very many congratulations to all of the SCID graduates (intake March 2012) – very well done for all your hard work and commitment. Please do keep in touch, via this Blog (www.uolscid.wordpress.com), JISCMail (uolscid@ jiscmail.ac.uk), Twitter (@SCID2012) and through the Department).

Below is one of many videos now available of presentations given at the Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict, held last month in London, which a couple of members of the SCID Panel of Experts attended. You can find more on the Global Summit from http://www.gov.uk/endsexualviolenceinconflict20­14 and https://www.facebook.com/EndSexualViolenceInConflict, and more FCO videos on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWl6ZVke4P2GYpk6eq4BPIQ. In this video, Lieutenant General David Morrison, Australian Chief of Army, addresses the closing plenary on the role of soldiers in ending conflict-related sexual violence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZAFEorwqv0#t=235

An interesting video of a lecture given by Roger Mac Ginty on Everyday Peace:

https://soundcloud.com/criminology-uni-of-leics/a-social-reconstruction-approach-to-fostering-security-justice-after-conflict

This is one of the ten presentations delivered at the first SCID Symposium, which are being individually uploaded here (where you can comment upon and discuss issues related to a particular presentation) and uploaded on to the Symposium page of this Blog, for ease of reference. I look forward to further discussion of some of the critical issues raised within these presentations on the subject of building security and justice after conflict.

In this presentation, Whit Mason advocates for a social reconstruction approach to building security and justice after conflict. Whit suggests that much thinking about efforts to build security and justice after conflict is very narrowly focussed, and rarely draws – for example – from the work of the great jurists and political philosophers, or the experience of places which have become stable and where security and justice prevails. Whit argues that one of the main problems of this field is that it understands itself and its domain very narrowly, and that the corpus of thinking from which it draws is very limited. For instance, the work of the sociologist Norbert Elias, who investigated, among other things, the connection between centralised authority and people developing the habits of restraint that are common to civilised societies, is generally ignored because his work is not seen as part of the corpus of thinking relevant to this field. This is one of the reasons why deep and meaningful lessons and insights are hard to find when reflecting upon how best to resolve conflict and build peace. Consequently, Whit argues that we should enlarge the scope of what we think we are doing when we aim to rebuild security and justice. Also, it is argued that we need to think more about what we think we are doing, how societies operate and the principles upon which they are based, and how interventions intersect with the organic operations of society – if peacebuilding efforts are to be more successful. Whit concludes that we need to be more honest and clear about the reasons why we intervene; think more deeply about the reasons for conflict and why people engage in armed conflict, for instance, notably why people perceive there to be no better viable alternative; and what can outsiders do, if anything, to help people change these perceptions.

Whit Mason has worked as a journalist, political analyst and strategist, UN speechwriter, USAID outreach director, NGO Chief of Party, academic researcher, and think tank fellow, in many societies, including those affected by conflict. He has written extensively on the political aspects of development and conflict, including co-authoring a critically acclaimed book, Peace at Any Price: How the World Failed Kosovo and Zealous Democrats: Islamists and Democracy and editing The Rule of Law in Afghanistan: Missing in Inaction. He is an expert in strategic communications and is also a Research Associate at Oxford University’s Centre for International Studies.