Good intentions do not prevent conflict

When we speak of the international community we think of states, the United Nations, development agencies, or non-government organisations. Yet other groups and individuals are often as relevant to development: multinational and local companies and private security firms.

These groups, however, often fail to unite behind effective strategies for conflict prevention: reconciling positions, reaching compromise and securing consent are often difficult.

While states, multilateral organisations and NGOs claim to be struggling for peace, an end to poverty and for human rights, their actual strategies are not always helpful. Take the 1994 genocide in Rwanda: the UN's stock approach demanded a cease-fire which would have immobilised the only source of protection for Tutsis from Hutu militias.

The specific nature of individual situations needs to be studied, understood and respected. Kosovo is not like East Timor. Transposing strategies from Mozambique to Angola is unlikely to work. If the riskiest moments during crises are not recognised or understood — sharp economic decline or political transitions, for example — preventative strategies cannot work.

International actors have a shocking record of failure in conflict prevention — including the failure even to try. This is hardly surprising: the international media and large NGOs can only focus meaningfully on a few issues at once — generally those of greatest geographically strategic concern. They rarely focus on crises that actually or potentially cost the most lives.

The current focus includes Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Israel-Palestine-Lebanon situation and occasionally, Darfur. While discussions on Iran and North Korea are preventative, the others constitute full-blown crises. In Darfur, the problems have been known for some time and a peace agreement between several of the parties was reached in May 2006, but power politics (and local actors) have impeded its implementation.

We now know that countries previously at war are most likely to experience conflict again. Yet East Timor was removed from the UN Security Council's active agenda not long before serious rioting in early 2006 highlighted continuing instability. Other countries with experience of past conflicts continue to remain at acute risk.

Innovative preventative strategies occasionally break through. For instance, efforts by the Conflict Prevention and Peace Forum successfully prompted the largest UN human rights monitoring mission, in Nepal in 2005.

Prevention is important for countries immediately affected and for neighbouring states. Much of West Africa was affected by the conflicts in Liberia, Sierra Leone and beyond. The conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo involved armies of six neighbouring states. Colombia's conflict affected border areas of Peru and Ecuador.

Conflict prevention strategies can work but only with sustained attention and adequate resources. In addition, it is necessary to:

• tailor strategies to individual situations
• recognise the role of economic issues and actors in generating and sustaining conflict
• have a long-term approach
• be sensitive to regional factors.

David Malone
High Commissioner for India and Ambassador to Bhutan and Nepal, Government of Canada
David.Malone@international.gc.ca

These views are David Malone's and not those of the Canadian Government

Views expressed on these pages are not necessarily those of DFID, IDS, id21 or other contributing institutions. Copyright remains with the original authors but (unless stated otherwise) any article may be copied or quoted without restriction, provided both source (id21, insights) and authors are properly acknowledged and informed. Copyright © 2006 id21. All rights reserved.