A quick overview of the global security situation can discourage even the most optimistic among us. Russia's war against Ukraine has entered its third year with no end in sight. Meanwhile, hostilities between Hamas and Israel continue, with the ever-present risk - as demonstrated by the exchange of blows between Iran and Israel earlier this month - that the conflict will spread throughout the Middle East.
Since the February coup in Myanmar in February 2021, the civil war has worsened, and the regime's army has lost significant territory to various militias while nearly two million people have been displaced. The Sudanese civil war has been going on for a year, although the country has been torn apart by the uprising against it Omar al-Bashir in 2019. Several other countries - Ethiopia, Haiti, Libya, Syria and Yemen - are gripped by wars of attrition, humanitarian suffering and militia violence.
The truth is that each of these situations is different. However, they also share certain characteristics: years of mismanagement and abuse of scarce resources, deep internal divisions, and state violence against civilians. Conflicts are also exacerbated by external factors, including severe environmental stress and military interference by other countries.
In each of these cases, a whole range of local and international actors are trying to mediate and end the suffering. In rare cases where the end could be on the horizon, the conversation moves into the difficult "what next" phase. At that point, three basic principles should be kept in mind.
First, for a transitional government to be successful, it must immediately establish control over security. If this does not happen, the power vacuum results in looting and crime, as was the case after the US military interventions in Panama and Iraq.
Having a visible civilian police presence on the streets is imperative not only to establish and maintain order, but also to give the transitional government the breathing space and public support necessary to implement reforms.
Security is also essential to ensure that reconstruction can begin in a safe and coordinated manner.
The second lesson is to build better than the last. In the early stages of post-conflict reconstruction, there is an influx of huge amounts of money from international development agencies, the private sector, the diaspora and non-traditional financiers. It is of crucial importance that transparent supervision, coordination and accountability mechanisms are agreed in advance.
In too many cases (Afghanistan and Iraq are the first examples that come to mind) a large financial injection has emboldened the wrong people, creating new factions and harmful actors. It should be possible, even before the cessation of hostilities, to build the capacities and networks of local non-governmental organizations to ensure financial integrity for the post-conflict period.
Finally, the most important lesson may seem the most obvious, but is often ignored: it should be ensured that local actors lead any kind of management, reconstruction, administration and security functions. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, East Timor, Iraq and Kosovo, for example, international representatives took on the roles of civil government, while foreign peacekeepers and police were tasked with maintaining security.
Even if it is politically profitable for international actors to play such roles, it undermines the stated goal of promoting democracy. It is also extremely expensive to employ international civilians and soldiers in war zones.
Many justifications have been offered for engaging international actors in these roles: there is too much hatred between local communities that have never had democracy before; only a neutral power can rebuild trust and so on. These arguments are reminiscent of those used during the colonial era.
The role of international actors in the period after any conflict should be behind the scenes and advisory. A more recent example of success occurred during the anti-ISIS coalition launched in September 2014.
The coalition led by the United States (with a significant role of Great Britain) adopted the strategy "with, with, through and for local forces". This approach strengthened and built trust in local security forces and the transitional government.
In the cities of Nova Gorica and Gorizia, which are located on two sides of the border between Italy and Slovenia, decades of division, resentment and tension have been overcome over time by creative approaches to joint sovereignty (such as joint cultural, sports and infrastructure projects). Encouraged by a visionary mayor in the 1960s, this process helped build trust between the two communities. In 2025, Nova Gorica and Gorizia will share the prestige of being European capitals of culture. The world needs more such success stories.
The text is taken from "Financial Times"
Translation: NB
Bonus video: