Welcome to ccp web site

Just after the Netherlands replaced Ireland at the Presidency of the European Union, Mr Marcel de Vink, Representative of the Netherlands to CIVCOM, delivered an address on "the Dutch Presidency's approach to civilian crisis management and conflict prevention."

Also addressing the audience of approximately 30 key policy-makers from the EU institutions, international organisations and NGOs, was Mr Paul Eavis, Director of Saferworld, introducing the paper: "Strengthening Global Security through Addressing the Root Causes of Conflict: Priorities for the Irish and Dutch Presidencies in 2004" (issued by Saferworld and International Alert).

Welcome/Introduction

Michael Contet from SFCG, welcomed Marcel de Vink and Paul Eavis and the participants to the meeting. MEP Joost Lagendijk, who hosted the meeting, introduced his newly-elected colleagues Angelika Beer and Raul Romeva who are going to take up his duties as rapporteur on conflict prevention.

Address by Marcel de Vink, Representative of the Netherlands to CIVCOM

Mr de Vink emphasised the fact that conflict prevention and crisis management expenditure and efforts are mainly directed on the military but not on their civilian component. The work of the former Irish Presidency will be carried forward together with the ideas developed by the previous presidencies on the issues of early warning and security.
Mr de Vink welcomed the increasing development of a conflict prevention policy in the EU and stressed the promising cooperation that is currently going on between EU and UN on important issues like the crisis in Congo and the development of Burundi. UN is a key partner for the EU
security strategy together with OECD and the African Peace and Security Council of the African Union. This multilateral approach to conflict resolution could stimulate a concerted action plan that will reinforce the endeavours of the international community to develop the capabilities of the African states in peace keeping. The main priority is to move more and more the decision-making on the field, giving the
lead to the African parties in conflict prevention issues.
Several areas in conflict in the world were considered a priority target for Dutch presidency action in the crisis management field. The main focus still remains on Sudan and Darfur but also on Ivory Coast, Eritrea and Ethiopia. In Europe, the main efforts will concentrate in the Balkans, namely in Macedonia and Kosovo where assistance will be given to the governments which committed themselves to carry on the reforms.
The link between security and development was discussed as a pivotal issue in order to promote prosperity. Priority will be given to strengthen the code of conduct whenever the member states will be willing to proceed with its implementation.
As far as the civilian crisis management is concerned, the actual enforcement of the provisional plan started only few years ago, the main examples being two police missions in the Balkans and one in Georgia. One extra operation was recently developed in Kinshasa. Monitoring the achievements of these projects will be done by the end of the year. Concerning the EU security strategy, Mr de Vink advocated for greater capacity building in the civilian and not exclusively military aspect of crisis by improving the delivery efficiency of member states in the rapid deployment of missions on the field and by putting together a common budget. Mr de Vink concluded his speech by recommending particular areas of the world like Afghanistan where EU should mobilise support for civilian crisis management.

Address by Paul Eavis (Saferworld)

Mr Eavis started his speech welcoming the Action Plan on Civilian Aspects of ESDP and the forthcoming conference in November. Moreover he welcomed that its publication coincided with the Irish review of the EU Program for the prevention of violent conflicts, as this highlights the need to make the links between crisis management and conflict prevention. He later added that it is interesting to note that both are now framed within the context of the European Security Strategy.
Mr Eavis wished to focus his comments on outlining a number of priorities which the Dutch government can take forward during their Presidency to advance the EU's conflict prevention agenda.

First, strengthening the linkages between the EU's crisis management capacities and conflict prevention, thereby ensuring that crisis management operations are embedded in long-term CP approaches.

The Action plan recognises the links between crisis management and conflict prevention, and suggests the following:

- Developing monitoring missions pre, during and post conflicts.

- Linking refined early warning with the new civil-military
planning cell.

- Ensuring continuous dialogue between ESDP and EU development experts to develop synergy between development assistance activities and crisis management in post conflict reconstruction.

- Deploying more readily operational and multifunctional, civilian teams based on case-by-case basis to include SSR, border control, human rights, and experts.

As the Action Plan makes clear, planning for individual active and post conflict missions is essential, and identified as an area for improvement. Greater planning and dialogue should take place between development and ESDP/CFSP communities more regularly particularly at the pre-conflict stages. At present there are some 150 EU military staff engaged in strategic planning but there are only 15 staff in the Council secretariat involved in strategic planning for civilian operations, plus only two staff in the Conflict Prevention Unit in DG Relex responsible for mainstreaming CP. This imbalance needs to be addressed. Alongside important developments in the crisis management field, it is important to ensure that EU development and foreign policies focus on tackling the root causes of conflict. One important way forward in this regard is to deepen awareness of conflict assessment methodologies and frameworks through community training programs. Another important way forward would be to put greater emphasis on the development and implementation of comprehensive preventive strategies by the commission and council. This would go some way to enhance joint planning and ensure that the EU pays more attention to addressing the underlying or root causes of conflict, rather than just reacting to crises, which in the long term is unsustainable.
Developing EU policy instruments to engage with weak and failing states is another priority. The EU's approach to both the DRC and Sudan is also tied up with broader issue of how they should deal with weak governments and difficult partnerships. It is important to note that 40% of the worlds poor live in these states and that unless they are tackled it will be impossible to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Such states might result as a consequence of economic stagnation, corruption, authoritarian or unrepresentative leadership, decaying national infrastructure. They require clear policies and commitment for engagement in the long-term, in addition to military instruments to restore order and humanitarian means to tackle the immediate crisis.
Mr Eavis later advocated for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in conflict zones. Although the nature and behaviour of foreign investing companies has been identified as a significant factor in many conflicts, little progress has been made by governments or multilateral organizations in systematically engaging companies in conflict prevention. The EU should work with the private sector to understand and implement conflict-sensitive approaches to engagement in weak and failing states and build this into on-going corporate social responsibility initiatives.
Mr Eavis also added that arms proliferation could be a significant contributory cause or factor in explaining state weakness and failure and in fuelling conflict. The proliferation of conventional weapons, especially small arms and light weapons, are not addressed in the ESS.
The EU should develop and support the various regional and national initiatives to tackle arms proliferation, such as the Nairobi Declaration in the Horn and Great Lakes regions of Africa, and the Stability Pact Regional Implementation Plan. The EU should also support the development of National Action Plans and to integrate support for such plans into development programs. The presidency should push for an obligation on all Member States to publish an annual report on their arms exports to enable parliaments, the media and public to perform watchdog roles.
Whilst it is right that the EU put emphasis on working with governments and strengthening regional and sub-regional inter-governmental structures - such as AU, SADC, IGAD, etc. -, Mr Eavis argued that it is also important to recognise that conflict prevention and peace-building is not only a multi-national challenge, but a multi-sectoral one, which includes civilians and NGOs. Identifying key reformers within a state and seeking to enlarge their political space is vital and can provide important entry points. The EU should support the mobilisation of these social resources at all levels, including internationally (e.g. through diasporas).

Debate

Heike Schneider, Head of Office, European Peacebuilding Liaison Office (EPLO), chaired the debate. She thanked the speakers and repeated the key points they made. She noted that the Dutch government had expressed its willingness to address African issues as a priority. She facilitated the discussion that followed and asked for questions.

Linking security with development
A key issue for the government holding the EU Presidency to address, in regard to conflict prevention, is to identify priorities and set achievable targets. There is a general awareness that there could be no development without security. If EU spends money in development but without having previously created a security environment, the money will be used in vain. Cooperation with the UN is key, since it is the most important actor in conflict prevention and peace building.

EU code of conduct on arms export
Mr de Vink acknowledged that about the code of conduct there is a problem of interpretation. It is not binding and it is difficult to incorporate it into domestic law. The feasible aim is to make it more transparent and the implementation of it should be subjected to prior notification. Moreover, the issue of violation of human rights should be included into the code. Conflict impact assessments section of the code of conduct must encompass extensive tools and approaches, getting different actors involved (governments, donors, civil society).

Difference between conflict prevention and crisis management
Mr de Vink stated that it was a matter of priority to readdress the issue of preventing violent conflict. So far crisis management attracted more attention than conflict prevention. Conflict prevention does form an integral part of the EU's foreign policy but it was too often used in connection with military action. Conflict being more costly than avoiding it, priority must be given to its prevention. On the other hand, the Middle East was not a success story. These lessons learnt show that the EU's foreign policy should promote conflict resolution as a key target.

Civilian Crisis Budget
Mr de Vink acknowledged that, in order to provide conditions for long term stability, one has to increase the civilian crisis budget and reduce the one used for the military to contain the crisis from escalating further. Building peace capacity goes through a process of strengthening local institutions to work on conflict prevention in the field but under supervision from the EU.

Sudan and Darfur
Due to recent alarming developments in Sudan, Mr de Vink offered the participants the opportunity to elaborate on this topic. Conflict resolution in Darfur was a failure for EU/UN joint action because of lack of agreement between the respective field offices. He stressed that the UN considered it was now the most critical conflict situation in the world. The issue of whether the EU should send peacekeeping troops was raised. The need for further conflict prevention was emphasised, with more high-level diplomacy rather than more peacekeeping troops deployed on the ground. A large-scale peacekeeping action by civil society will be a priority.

Alessandro Rossi
European Development Officer
Nonviolent Peaceforce
Rue Van Elewyck 35
1050 Bruxelles
tel/fax: +32(0)26480076
Mobile: +32(0)484713896
arossi@nonviolentpeaceforce.org
www.nonviolentpeaceforce.org

TOP



		Dear European Members of NP Please find below the synthesis (prepared by Search for Common Ground)of the last "Interagency Forum on Conflict Prevention", 28 July 2003, European Parliament. Just one addition: in the debate I asked the Dutch Government representative to explain why local actors for peace, addressed in a Council resolution in favour of "Human Rights Defenders", are not considered substantial partners in crisis management and conflict prevention, not even in the Action Plan to enhance Civilian Capabilities of the EU. He openly said that this was not a priority for the vast majority of Member States. For further information, please feel free to contact me. Yours Alessandro Rossi Report of meeting "Interagency Forum on Conflict Prevention" 28 July 2003 European Parliament Just after the Netherlands replaced Ireland at the Presidency of the European Union, Mr Marcel de Vink, Representative of the Netherlands to CIVCOM, delivered an address on "the Dutch Presidency's approach to civilian crisis management and conflict prevention." Also addressing the audience of approximately 30 key policy-makers from the EU institutions, international organisations and NGOs, was Mr Paul Eavis, Director of Saferworld, introducing the paper: "Strengthening Global Security through Addressing the Root Causes of Conflict: Priorities for the Irish and Dutch Presidencies in 2004" (issued by Saferworld and International Alert). Welcome/Introduction Michael Contet from SFCG, welcomed Marcel de Vink and Paul Eavis and the participants to the meeting. MEP Joost Lagendijk, who hosted the meeting, introduced his newly-elected colleagues Angelika Beer and Raul Romeva who are going to take up his duties as rapporteur on conflict prevention. Address by Marcel de Vink, Representative of the Netherlands to CIVCOM Mr de Vink emphasised the fact that conflict prevention and crisis management expenditure and efforts are mainly directed on the military but not on their civilian component. The work of the former Irish Presidency will be carried forward together with the ideas developed by the previous presidencies on the issues of early warning and security. Mr de Vink welcomed the increasing development of a conflict prevention policy in the EU and stressed the promising cooperation that is currently going on between EU and UN on important issues like the crisis in Congo and the development of Burundi. UN is a key partner for the EU security strategy together with OECD and the African Peace and Security Council of the African Union. This multilateral approach to conflict resolution could stimulate a concerted action plan that will reinforce the endeavours of the international community to develop the capabilities of the African states in peace keeping. The main priority is to move more and more the decision-making on the field, giving the lead to the African parties in conflict prevention issues. Several areas in conflict in the world were considered a priority target for Dutch presidency action in the crisis management field. The main focus still remains on Sudan and Darfur but also on Ivory Coast, Eritrea and Ethiopia. In Europe, the main efforts will concentrate in the Balkans, namely in Macedonia and Kosovo where assistance will be given to the governments which committed themselves to carry on the reforms. The link between security and development was discussed as a pivotal issue in order to promote prosperity. Priority will be given to strengthen the code of conduct whenever the member states will be willing to proceed with its implementation. As far as the civilian crisis management is concerned, the actual enforcement of the provisional plan started only few years ago, the main examples being two police missions in the Balkans and one in Georgia. One extra operation was recently developed in Kinshasa. Monitoring the achievements of these projects will be done by the end of the year. Concerning the EU security strategy, Mr de Vink advocated for greater capacity building in the civilian and not exclusively military aspect of crisis by improving the delivery efficiency of member states in the rapid deployment of missions on the field and by putting together a common budget. Mr de Vink concluded his speech by recommending particular areas of the world like Afghanistan where EU should mobilise support for civilian crisis management. Address by Paul Eavis (Saferworld) Mr Eavis started his speech welcoming the Action Plan on Civilian Aspects of ESDP and the forthcoming conference in November. Moreover he welcomed that its publication coincided with the Irish review of the EU Program for the prevention of violent conflicts, as this highlights the need to make the links between crisis management and conflict prevention. He later added that it is interesting to note that both are now framed within the context of the European Security Strategy. Mr Eavis wished to focus his comments on outlining a number of priorities which the Dutch government can take forward during their Presidency to advance the EU's conflict prevention agenda. First, strengthening the linkages between the EU's crisis management capacities and conflict prevention, thereby ensuring that crisis management operations are embedded in long-term CP approaches. The Action plan recognises the links between crisis management and conflict prevention, and suggests the following: - Developing monitoring missions pre, during and post conflicts. - Linking refined early warning with the new civil-military planning cell. - Ensuring continuous dialogue between ESDP and EU development experts to develop synergy between development assistance activities and crisis management in post conflict reconstruction. - Deploying more readily operational and multifunctional, civilian teams based on case-by-case basis to include SSR, border control, human rights, and experts. As the Action Plan makes clear, planning for individual active and post conflict missions is essential, and identified as an area for improvement. Greater planning and dialogue should take place between development and ESDP/CFSP communities more regularly particularly at the pre-conflict stages. At present there are some 150 EU military staff engaged in strategic planning but there are only 15 staff in the Council secretariat involved in strategic planning for civilian operations, plus only two staff in the Conflict Prevention Unit in DG Relex responsible for mainstreaming CP. This imbalance needs to be addressed. Alongside important developments in the crisis management field, it is important to ensure that EU development and foreign policies focus on tackling the root causes of conflict. One important way forward in this regard is to deepen awareness of conflict assessment methodologies and frameworks through community training programs. Another important way forward would be to put greater emphasis on the development and implementation of comprehensive preventive strategies by the commission and council. This would go some way to enhance joint planning and ensure that the EU pays more attention to addressing the underlying or root causes of conflict, rather than just reacting to crises, which in the long term is unsustainable. Developing EU policy instruments to engage with weak and failing states is another priority. The EU's approach to both the DRC and Sudan is also tied up with broader issue of how they should deal with weak governments and difficult partnerships. It is important to note that 40% of the worlds poor live in these states and that unless they are tackled it will be impossible to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Such states might result as a consequence of economic stagnation, corruption, authoritarian or unrepresentative leadership, decaying national infrastructure. They require clear policies and commitment for engagement in the long-term, in addition to military instruments to restore order and humanitarian means to tackle the immediate crisis. Mr Eavis later advocated for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in conflict zones. Although the nature and behaviour of foreign investing companies has been identified as a significant factor in many conflicts, little progress has been made by governments or multilateral organizations in systematically engaging companies in conflict prevention. The EU should work with the private sector to understand and implement conflict-sensitive approaches to engagement in weak and failing states and build this into on-going corporate social responsibility initiatives. Mr Eavis also added that arms proliferation could be a significant contributory cause or factor in explaining state weakness and failure and in fuelling conflict. The proliferation of conventional weapons, especially small arms and light weapons, are not addressed in the ESS. The EU should develop and support the various regional and national initiatives to tackle arms proliferation, such as the Nairobi Declaration in the Horn and Great Lakes regions of Africa, and the Stability Pact Regional Implementation Plan. The EU should also support the development of National Action Plans and to integrate support for such plans into development programs. The presidency should push for an obligation on all Member States to publish an annual report on their arms exports to enable parliaments, the media and public to perform watchdog roles. Whilst it is right that the EU put emphasis on working with governments and strengthening regional and sub-regional inter-governmental structures - such as AU, SADC, IGAD, etc. -, Mr Eavis argued that it is also important to recognise that conflict prevention and peace-building is not only a multi-national challenge, but a multi-sectoral one, which includes civilians and NGOs. Identifying key reformers within a state and seeking to enlarge their political space is vital and can provide important entry points. The EU should support the mobilisation of these social resources at all levels, including internationally (e.g. through diasporas). Debate Heike Schneider, Head of Office, European Peacebuilding Liaison Office (EPLO), chaired the debate. She thanked the speakers and repeated the key points they made. She noted that the Dutch government had expressed its willingness to address African issues as a priority. She facilitated the discussion that followed and asked for questions. Linking security with development A key issue for the government holding the EU Presidency to address, in regard to conflict prevention, is to identify priorities and set achievable targets. There is a general awareness that there could be no development without security. If EU spends money in development but without having previously created a security environment, the money will be used in vain. Cooperation with the UN is key, since it is the most important actor in conflict prevention and peace building. EU code of conduct on arms export Mr de Vink acknowledged that about the code of conduct there is a problem of interpretation. It is not binding and it is difficult to incorporate it into domestic law. The feasible aim is to make it more transparent and the implementation of it should be subjected to prior notification. Moreover, the issue of violation of human rights should be included into the code. Conflict impact assessments section of the code of conduct must encompass extensive tools and approaches, getting different actors involved (governments, donors, civil society). Difference between conflict prevention and crisis management Mr de Vink stated that it was a matter of priority to readdress the issue of preventing violent conflict. So far crisis management attracted more attention than conflict prevention. Conflict prevention does form an integral part of the EU's foreign policy but it was too often used in connection with military action. Conflict being more costly than avoiding it, priority must be given to its prevention. On the other hand, the Middle East was not a success story. These lessons learnt show that the EU's foreign policy should promote conflict resolution as a key target. Civilian Crisis Budget Mr de Vink acknowledged that, in order to provide conditions for long term stability, one has to increase the civilian crisis budget and reduce the one used for the military to contain the crisis from escalating further. Building peace capacity goes through a process of strengthening local institutions to work on conflict prevention in the field but under supervision from the EU. Sudan and Darfur Due to recent alarming developments in Sudan, Mr de Vink offered the participants the opportunity to elaborate on this topic. Conflict resolution in Darfur was a failure for EU/UN joint action because of lack of agreement between the respective field offices. He stressed that the UN considered it was now the most critical conflict situation in the world. The issue of whether the EU should send peacekeeping troops was raised. The need for further conflict prevention was emphasised, with more high-level diplomacy rather than more peacekeeping troops deployed on the ground. A large-scale peacekeeping action by civil society will be a priority. Alessandro Rossi European Development Officer Nonviolent Peaceforce Rue Van Elewyck 35 1050 Bruxelles tel/fax: +32(0)26480076 Mobile: +32(0)484713896 arossi@nonviolentpeaceforce.org www.nonviolentpeaceforce.org TOP