CIAO DATE: 07/04

You, The People: The United Nations, Transitional Administration, and State-Building

Executive Summary

• Transitional administrations represent the most complex operations attempted by the United Nations. The missions in Kosovo (1999—) and East Timor (1999–2002) are commonly seen as unique in the history of the United Nations. But they may also be seen as the latest in a series of operations that have involved the United Nations in ‘statebuilding’ activities, in which it has attempted to develop the institutions of government by assuming some or all of those sovereign powers on a temporary basis. Viewed in light of earlier UN operations, such as those in Namibia (1989–1990), Cambodia (1992–1993), and Eastern Slavonia (1996–1998), the idea that these exceptional circumstances may not recur is somewhat disingenuous. The need for policy research in this area was brought into sharp focus by the weighty but vague responsibilities assigned to the United Nations in Afghanistan (2002—) and its contested role in Iraq (2003—).
• Much research has focused on the doctrinal and operational difficulties experienced by such operations. This is a valuable area of research, but may obscure three sets of contradictions between means and ends that have plagued recent efforts to govern post-conflict territories. Recognizing and addressing these contradictions are key to the success of any transitional administration project.
• First, the means are inconsistent with the ends. Benevolent autocracy is an uncertain foundation for legitimate and sustainable national governance. It is inaccurate and, often, counterproductive to assert that transitional administration depends upon the consent or ‘ownership’ of the local population. It is inaccurate because if genuine local control were possible then a transitional administration would not be necessary. It is counter-productive because insincere claims of local ownership lead to frustration and suspicion on the part of local actors. Clarity is therefore required in recognizing: (i) the strategic objectives; (ii) the relationship between international and local actors and how this will change over time; and (iii) the commitment required of international actors in order to achieve objectives that warrant the temporary assumption of autocratic powers under a benevolent international administration.
• Second, the means are inadequate for the ends. International interest in post-conflict operations tends to be ephemeral, with availability of funds linked to the prominence of a foreign crisis on the domestic agenda of the states that contribute funds and troops. Both have tended to be insufficient. Funds for post-conflict reconstruction are notoriously supply- rather than demand-driven. This leads to multiplication of bureaucracy in the recipient country, inconsistency in disbursement procedures, and a focus on projects that may be more popular with donors than they are necessary in the recipient country. The use of assessed contributions for selected reconstruction tasks should be considered, as should revised trust fund procedures with oversight boards drawn from international, local, and private sector personnel. At the very least, monitoring mechanisms to track aid flows should be developed. Reluctance to commit funds is surpassed only by reluctance to commit troops: in the absence of security, however, meaningful political change is impossible. This was confirmed in the most brutal way possible with the attacks on UN personnel in Baghdad on 19 August 2003.
• Third, the means may sometimes be inappropriate for the ends. Though inadequacy of resources is a major concern, artificially high expectations are nonetheless imposed in certain areas of governance. Particularly when the United Nations itself assumes a governing role, there is a temptation to demand the highest standards of democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and the provision of services. Balancing these against the need for locally sustainable goals presents difficult problems.
• The 11 September 2001 attacks on the United States and the war on terror present both opportunities and challenges in this area of international action. Recognition that weak states can create threats that reach beyond their borders may increase the level of international interest in supporting those states. But undertaking such actions in the interest of external actors rather than the local population may lower the standards to which post-conflict reconstruction is held. The level of physical and economic security required in Afghanistan to prevent it becoming a terrorist haven, for example, is not the same as that required for the basic peace and prosperity of the general population.
• The United Nations experiments in transitional administration have reflected incremental learning. Even more important than learning from past mistakes and successes, however, is learning about future circumstances. Transitional administration demands, above all, trust on the part of local actors. Earning and keeping that trust requires a level of understanding, sensitivity, and respect for local traditions and political aspirations that has often been lacking in transitional administration. How that trust is managed will, in large part, determine its legacy.

Full text (PDF format, 24 pages, 2.5 MB)