Building Peace and International Order in Reality
Mona Tang
Second year, Master, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
The University of Tokyo
The message I received from the 4th Owada Chair is: Say “No!” to “It is what it is,” and think hard and creatively to build a new world.
Introduction Speech
In the introductory speech, Professor Owada encouraged students to think deeply about the possibilities and limitations of the United Nations’ mechanism for the maintenance of international peace. He first explained the historical development of the mechanism. At the 1943 Teheran Conference, President Roosevelt of the US, Prime Minister Churchill of the UK, and Generalissimo Stalin of the Soviet Union gathered to discuss the future shape of the world. A collective security system enforced by “3 policemen” was created through subsequent discussions.
However, the emergence of the Cold War froze this mechanism. When the paralyzed Security Council failed to react, an alternative pathway to create an international military intervention was established: the UN Peace Operations. Two legal frameworks were created along with the Peace Operations: 1. The General Assembly passed the “Uniting for Peace” Resolution; 2. the Secretary-General successfully dispatched a multinational force under UN Charter Article 98. Professor Owada pointed out that these mechanisms have not been fully developed and thus need further exploration for creative implementations.
Meanwhile, as the current Peace Operation mechanism requires the host state’s consent, and as armed conflicts after the Cold War switched to having a non-international character, how these conditions and realities have influenced the mechanism for the maintenance of international peace of the United Nations was a question left for us students to think about in the debate. Professor Owada used the Srebrenica massacre as an example to help us generate our thoughts in a more concrete context.
Keynote Speech
Professor Endo from the University of Tokyo gave a Keynote Speech on Peace Operations in Africa, focusing on mechanisms provided by a regional organization, the African Union (AU). Since the 2010s, non-state conflicts have been increasing, whether among armed groups or one-sided violence by the government or armed groups against civilians. Many of the armed groups are associated with the so-called “terrorist” groups. Therefore, the AU established “Task Force-Based Peace Operations” to eliminate that kind of violence. Although this new Task-Force-based Peace Operations managed to achieve its goal to a certain degree, the economic and political background of this violence remained untouched. Furthermore, it is important to look into the profiles of “terrorists.” For many of them, one of the reasons for joining the “terrorist” group is their mistrust towards the government and their economic difficulties. Professor Endo concluded his speech with the concept of Human Security, pointing out the necessity to develop the mechanism with a human-centered approach.
Following his speech, participating students could develop discussions on the changing nature of the armed conflict, new developments in Peace Operations, “terrorism”, and Human Security in the African context.
Student Discussion
Student discussion sessions are very core of the Owada Chair. This year, we had four Ph.D. students from Leiden University, four undergraduate and Master’s students from the University of Tokyo, and one Master’s student from Waseda University. The nearly four-hour discussion was intense and fruitful.
Session 1
In the first two hours, we mainly discussed Peace Operations in Africa.
We started our discussion with an analysis of “terrorist” activities. The motivation for participation in “terrorist” groups can be divided into “push” factors, such as feelings of discrimination, and “pull” factors, such as “terrorist” recruitment campaigns. Jihadist groups, such as ISIS, are craftily using religion, social problems, and human being’s vulnerability to turn people into killing machines. Further, poverty is one big factor. Thus, we agreed that any short-term solution — either Task Force-Based Peace Operations by the AU or Peace Operations by the UN — is not able to tackle these problems and build the governance capability of the host population in the long term.
How do we build a long-term solution then? The role of regional organizations is pivotal. We all agreed that it is important that regional organizations share the responsibility to promote peace in Africa as they have a good understanding of the local context. Some suggested a burden-sharing solution through the concept of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). In order for regional organizations to respond to regional threats to peace according to their capabilities, it is necessary to clarify the maximum intensity of the armed conflict to which they can respond. If the armed conflict is more intense than this threshold, an international intervention by powerful states should be triggered under R2P. As long as the intensity is below the standard, the regional organization that intervened in the situation should keep its presence for a long time. One student agreed to the R2P approach from the perspective of Human Security. Another student said that funding is an international responsibility and the operation itself is a regional responsibility, similar to the solution suggested by Security Council Resolution 2719 (2023). However, is this “intensity” criteria realistic? Won’t African states resist their former colonial masters’ interventions, who might use R2P as an excuse for their intervention? Moreover, is international funding an effective solution?
Indeed, the colonial history of Africa has its effect until today. Many of us confirmed the importance of applying the discussed international concepts, R2P and Human Security, to the specific local contexts. Some suggested paying attention to the UN’s positionality and the subjectivity of the local community. However, the local context is, in fact, very complicated: there is a lack of agreement and struggles for power, many religious tensions exist, and there are a number of “terrorist” activities. Meanwhile, it is difficult to build a power-sharing structure domestically, as including armed groups in the domestic governance or internationally to exchange resources is a big challenge to the government.
There is no easy solution in such a complex reality.
Session 2
In Session 2, our discussion focused on the UN’s architecture for the maintenance of international peace.
The discussion began with the “Srebrenica Massacre”. Dutch students were asked for their opinions on this issue, as the Netherlands Battalion (Dutchbat) was involved in this tragedy. One student explained that there were lawsuits filed on the liability of the Netherlands and the UN at the national (the Netherlands), regional (EU), and International (ICTY) levels. At the domestic level, the judgment was that the Netherlands was not responsible, while the UN had its immunity from lawsuits. Another student elaborated on Dutchbat’s responsibility for its failure to protect the Srebrenica area. The reality was that, first, necessary resources were apparently not supplied to execute the mandate given by the UN; and second, there was reasonable fear of the Dutchbat against the Serb paramilitary. Moreover, the command chain of the UN Peace Operation was not respected. Professor Owada acknowledged these opinions and elaborated on the command chain from the legal perspective. The “Uniting for Peace” Resolution requested the UN to command the Korean War. However, the command chain is an issue beyond Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, and in practice, it is usually operated in a more realistic way.
Besides this command issue, what was the cause of the “Srebrenica Massacre”? Some mentioned the reason as the lack of political will and military capacity while noting the complexity of the failure itself. The Dutch government had the political will to participate in Peace Operations, but the Dutchbat did not have enough military capacity to counter the Bosnian-Serb paramilitary. This led to the lack of political will of the Dutchbat to protect the safe areas recognized by the Security Council. Some disagreed that the Dutchbat had the political will to protect, and opined that the reason for this massacre was the UN’s inability to recognize the Bosnian-Serb paramilitary’s evil plan. Another student disagreed with the explanation for the failure to stop the massacre based on political will and instead suggested that a more concrete reality should be illustrated instead. The EC (European Economic Community, later European Union) was not able to deal with this former Yugoslavian conflict because of its institutional limitations, and European states had different stances on Yugoslavia’s issues. Further, the mandate given by the Security Council included permission to use force under Chapter 7, but the UN troops lacked resources and even had problems in self-defense.
Now, what can be a solution to contemporary issues such as the Ukraine-Russia and Israel-Gaza armed conflicts? No optimistic opinions and answers appeared on this question. The Security Council is paralyzed again. Even if the Secretary-General uses its authority under Article 98 of the UN Charter, its effectiveness and feasibility are not foreseeable. For the Gaza situation, it is difficult for the UN to act effectively without states’ support, especially the US. In the Ukraine conflict, the US and European states are providing military support, which may seem an effective solution. However, is this a solution? Can’t we create a political will? How should the UN play its role in creating peace?
What’s the hope for the future?
Thinking Further after the Discussion
From the Tokyo side, we had three preparation seminars and discussed different topics each time. These practices were important for us to get familiar with how to engage in discussion. I felt that my ideas and analysis became clearer after each practice. During the Owada Chair, I enjoyed the fruitful intellectual exchange of ideas with Leiden’s students very much.
But not just that. Even when I thought I had contributed to the debate quite well, Professor Owada asked me many questions on the issues of Ukraine and Gaza, which I felt were a bit difficult to answer. It is always easy to give explanations of the reasons behind what happened. But to think a step further on the solution to a current problem is more important, though more difficult. My answers turned out to be somehow “realist” from the International Relations perspective. I came to realize my perceptions of the current world in the subconscious mind. However, a certain degree of international order should not be denied, even if it is difficult to maintain in reality. A united world is needed to solve issues such as climate change. It is a world with common values, diversity of culture, and human security.
It is a complex world, but we, the young generations, are the hope for the future. Stay positive, create something new, and change the pessimistic reality.
Debate, not argue.
The Owada Chair aims to promote students’ understanding of the complexity of issues through debate, but not arguments. Students listen to each other, complement each other’s viewpoints, and understand issues better. Students can agree or disagree but won’t win or lose.
Looking at what and how we discussed, I think we did it!
With Sincere Gratitude to Professor Owada, Professor Endo, the Owada Chair Committee (Professor Kawakita and Professor Kihara-Hunt), students from Leiden/ Tokyo/Waseda Universities, and all the supporters involved in the 4th Owada Chair.
