The concept of peace is now open to an extraordinarily broad interpretation. US President Donald Trump’s assertions of what constitutes peace in countries and regions with varying levels and types of ongoing conflict such as Lebanon, the Indian subcontinent and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), suggests a highly fluid interpretation of that word. So, too, the discourse on peacebuilding. The quick fix appears to be the new preferred modus operandi for restoring peace and stability.
In reality, as the World Bank has observed, the most likely result of a civil war is more war – the so-called Conflict Trap. However, two countries in West Africa show what is possible. Liberia and Sierra Leone have now managed to stay largely peaceful following the end of their brutal civil wars more than 20 years ago. These are still politically fragile environments. Nevertheless, to reach this point is remarkable, especially compared to the long running conflicts in other countries, notably the DRC, which has suffered decades of unremitting violence despite numerous peace initiatives.
Why Liberia and Sierra Leone have not reverted to war
Crucially, Liberia and Sierra Leone implemented, admittedly in varying degrees, policies conducive to peace and stability. The restoration of security, initially through disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of combatants and then broader security sector reform, underpinned all other policies. Nevertheless, some form of accountability and representation, functioning government, and economic improvement were also necessary to build trust with the populations.
Structural factors count too. The relatively small size of the two countries with no large difficult-to-control spaces where armed actors could proliferate unchecked, the absence of sub-national groups with separatist agendas, and a high degree of religious tolerance all aided the quest for stability.
But peace is about people and not policies and context alone.
Presidents Ahmad Tejan Kabbah in Sierra Leone and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf in Liberia, unlike their predecessors, were credible and internationally compatible leaders. This enabled them to mobilize political support at home and funding from abroad. In office, they both respected term limits.
Peacekeeping and international support were crucial
Tony Blair in the UK, George Bush in the US, Kofi Annan at the UN, and Olusegun Obasanjo in Nigeria were ready to go the extra mile in support of the two leaders. This is not to say that international leaders, countries and institutions were right in all they did. They were not. But they were willing to provide backing on the security, political and economic fronts in the early, critical post-conflict years.
For both countries this support translated into UN peacekeeping deployments that were proportionally much larger than those deployed in other UN operations. Moreover, the Liberia and Sierra Leone deployments lasted for several years after the violence had ended. This extended presence provided the stabilisers that Kabbah and Johnson Sirleaf needed to make improvements in security, accountability, economic management and governance, even though that left quite a lot to be desired. In the years since, presidents, governments, and legislatures in both countries have changed through the ballot box (although Sierra Leone’s most recent polls were marred by some electoral malfeasance).
Can these positive experiences be replicated?
Unfortunately, one critical element in the equation of peace has changed significantly since the wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone ended: the international political environment. While inclusive leadership and domestic reconciliation are key prerequisites for post-conflict peacebuilding, external interventions can help (or hinder) that process. In the early 2000s the peacebuilding stars aligned. The divisions of the Cold War that had blocked peace initiatives had eased. Equally, the failures of interventions in Somali and Rwanda, if not forgotten, were sufficiently far away in time.
Great power rivalries pose challenges to peace initiatives
Today, in contrast, the prospect of repeating long and deep engagements in conflict afflicted countries seems remote. The resurgence of great power rivalries, the underfunding and undermining of the UN, the vagaries and belligerency in the policies of the Trump administration, the Russian invasion of Ukraine all work against such a commitment. UN peacekeepers have been evicted from Mali and replaced with Russian soldiers that are clearly unable to hold the line. The UN missions in South Sudan, the Central African Republic and Somalia are struggling to get funding. The DRC has asked the UN peacekeepers to leave.
So, do these disappointments mean that peacebuilding is a redundant relic of a more liberal and collaborative era? Not necessarily.
The future of international relations, as always but particularly now, is uncertain and we could be looking at a different world in only a few years’ time. So, we are not pronouncing the demise of peacebuilding interventions.
We believe that such initiatives are still needed and possible; they should be a priority for the next UN Secretary General as part of broader efforts aimed at reinvigorating the UN’s central role in maintaining global peace and security. However, if such interventions are to succeed, local and international leaders must, as Mark Malloch Brown, the former Deputy UN Secretary General has urged, “press on with building the peace, weathering setbacks, and celebrating one small victory at a time”. He rightly cautions that “Peace takes time, patience, and commitment.”
Alan Doss and David Harris are the authors of the recently published book, Escaping the Conflict Trap? Seeking Stability in Liberia and Sierra Leone. Alan Doss led several UN peacekeeping missions. Dr David Harris is a retired academic at the University of Bradford who has worked extensively on both countries.
