ANALYSIS: UN peacekeeping in Africa needs stricter parameters

Peacekeeping is one of the most important conflict management tools of the United Nations (UN), but policymakers, host nations and experts agree it is in crisis . This year has seen an increase in confrontational, even hostile, relations with African host governments and, to some extent, with urban populations.

Attacks on installations of the United Nations peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) due to its perceived ineffectiveness against armed groups have resulted in the deaths of three peacekeepers and several Congolese civilians . Tensions between Mali's military authorities and the UN mission there have escalated to the point that the UN has been unable to monitor the human rights situation in areas where the Russian Wagner Group was deployed .

In the Central African Republic (CAR), the use of Russian private soldiers follows a period of conflict between the government and the UN mission. Peacekeepers were seen as ineffective in helping the government restore its authority. As President Faustin-Archange Touadéra embarks on a highly contested constitutional review process aimed at extending his stay in power, the UN mission will navigate in uncharted waters.

Globally, peacekeeping operations are deployed in increasingly complex political and security situations, making operational success difficult and strategic objectives difficult to define. UN missions were originally created to monitor ceasefires and compliance with peace agreements between two warring parties. Contemporary missions have evolved into stabilization operations aimed at enforcing peace and addressing the root causes of crises.

This expanded scope - often referred to as "Christmas tree mandates" - has changed the status of UN missions. Now, multidimensional stabilization looks like whole-of-society, whole-of-government approaches that push missions to work closely with the host government. This often exposes the UN to opposition and accusations of bias from civil society leaders.

Furthermore, demagogue politicians see it as an opportunity to hijack their failures and use the UN as a scapegoat for society's ills. In recent years, this has happened to varying degrees in DRC, Mali and CAR. This puts the UN at the center of the political game in host countries, as it presents a critical resource that socio-political actors often fight to access.

The 2015 report of the High Level Independent Panel on UN Peace Operations rightly emphasizes the primacy of politics in peacekeeping. But are UN missions properly equipped to meet the political challenges they face in host countries? In the field, most missions seem reluctant to engage in the policy of managing relations with governments and host populations.

As the future of peacekeeping is debated, the UN Secretariat should consider assessing the ability of its missions to navigate the political minefield in which they operate. This is especially necessary for large operations with a stabilization mandate that has existed for a decade or more. .

Long periods in a country often create more problems for peacekeepers to solve. Their little-known successes, particularly in the humanitarian and economic fields, tend to make the leaders in place less inclined to carry out the reforms necessary for lasting stabilization.

One of the most difficult aspects of multidimensional stabilization missions is to assess their objectives and effectiveness. It is widely recognized that stabilizing societies undergoing or emerging from violent conflict is complex. Recent