What is the status of the UN approach to DDR in mid-2012?

Walt Kilroy looking back to the foundational theory by the early scholars such as Berdal, Colletta, and Kingma, reviews the many challenges in applying DDR effectively in dynamic contexts. However, he predicts the continuing need for DDR in post-conflict environments.¹⁷¹ He emphasises the general realisation that reintegration is the most critical element of the concept and the most difficult to implement. Kilroy reminds us citing the UNDP Practice Note on DDR of 2005 that the main beneficiaries of the programme should ultimately be the wider community.¹⁷²

Drawing from the data of the Escola de Pau series of DDR studies, he points out that 19 DDR programmes were underway in 2007… including programmes that may have been in hiatus or that were dealing only with a narrow constituency of the belligerents in a particular conflict.¹⁷³ Three were in Asia (Nepal, Indonesia and Afghanistan), two in the Americas (Colombia and Haiti) and the remainder in Africa involving a total of 1.1 million combatants.

In reviewing the “success or failure” attributed to DDR programmes,¹⁷⁴ Kilroy claims that there is a positive view on their impact, though recurrent shortcomings are noted.¹⁷⁵ These include a neglected gender perspective, difficulty in setting entry criteria and problems caused by interrupted cash flows.

However, the main difficulty is usually associated with socio-economic reintegration and the capacity of ex-combatants to find sustainable decent livelihoods.

170 Lamb, 2011, Op cit, p 12

171 Walt Kilroy, 2010, Op sit

172 UNPB Practice note on DDR, p8 as cited by Kilroy 2010, Op cit

173 Escola de Pau, 2006, 2007 and 2008 as cited by Kilroy 2010, Op cit

174 Professor Kenji Isezaki of Tokyo University of Foreign Studies (TUFS), an old DDR hand, contends in discussions with the author, that the use of the terms “success or failure” in relation to DDR is irrational and naïve. What is achieved in implementing DDR is neither, but maybe some level of both. However, DDR is a vital series of processes offering ‘breathing space’ for political and security outcomes to be achieved. The socio-economic outcomes are incidental and often the expectations of short to medium-term socio-economic achievement through DDR in a very disadvantaged post-conflict socio-economic environment are unrealistic. Both Millett and Shibuya address this consideration to some degree later in the dissertation.

175Kilroy, 2010, Op sit, cites Berman and Labonte 2006, who assert that the DDR programme in Sierra Leone led to a perceptible reduction in small arms in society.

While the policy recommendations drafted by those earlier scholars remain relevant, the theory is evolving. We are seeing the growth of best practice tool kits such as the IDDRS. Quantitative empirical studies are also arising and he offers the examples of Humphries and Weinstein, 2007 (He didn’t mention their 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2009); Muggah 2005 (amongst Muggah’s prolific output);

Kingma 1997; Spear 2002; Batchelor and Kingma 2004; Knight and Ozerdem 2004. In particular, Kilroy draws from the early literature that the participatory approach and bottom-up impetus is critical for ‘successful’ DDR. IDDRS has offered a new best practice tool in the five principles that advise that DDR programmes must be people centered, flexible, transparent and accountable, nationally owned, integrated and well planned.¹⁷⁶ Kilroy notes the difficulty in fixing rigorous quantitative evidence of the positive impact of DDR especially in the reintegration phase. He comments on the Humphries and Weinstein large N study of ex-combatants in Sierra Leone and their null findings as regards the impact of reintegration support. He cites Molloy (2009) who contends that skewing factors and difficulties with the operationalization of variables may have hidden positive results perceived in qualitative indicators, from the practitioner’s perspective. Human Rights Watch 2005 as cited by Kilroy attributes a failure to complete DDR in Sierra Leone as a contributor to the re-recruitment of former child soldiers to fight in conflicts in neighboring countries. Shibuya agrees with the comment but asks how do we know when an ex-combatant has “completed” the reintegration process.¹⁷⁷

Kilroy emphasises the current re-focus on the benefits of local participation in, and ownership of the DDR processes (Dzinesa 2006, Kilroy 2008, Ozerdem 2009) while acknowledging the complexity that this offers to implementers. In considering the priorities of the participative approach, Kilroy cites Bell and Watson 2006 in “recognising that [in the implementation of DDR] the ‘how’ is often more important than the ‘what’.”

Robert Muggah has a tendency to clearly identify the contentious issues in the complex world of DDR.

His Innovations in DDR Policy and Research 2010 maintains his reputation.¹⁷⁸ In reviewing the DDR literature of the new millennium, he detects the shift from the security-first (minimalist) approach focused on military and policing priorities to a broader development (maximalist) approach that considers the holistic human security aspects of DDR. Further, he tells us, somewhat gratifyingly for a practitioner, that his review of literature detects “the progressive professionalization and

176 Desmond Molloy, “DDR: Niger Delta and Sri Lanka: Smoke and Mirrors?” Journal of Conflict Transformation and Security, Vol 1, No. 1, April 2011, demonstrates the relevance of these five principles and how they may be appropriately used to evaluate the potential of a DDR programme.

177 Shibuya’s comments on an early draft of this chapter, Op cit.

178 Robert Muggah, “Innovations in DDR Policy and Research: Reflections on the Last Decade”, NUPI Working Paper 774, 2010

standardization of DDR practice within the multilateral, bilateral and non-governmental communities”.¹⁷⁹ While early researchers were preoccupied with:

process and practice of DDR as a spatially, temporally and socially bounded activity…

[they] seldom considered more fundamental issues of causality and correlation, actor agency or intervention outcomes.¹⁸⁰

Latterly, researchers are broadening their research areas and analysis to include comparative case studies and statistical assessments seeking more evidenced-based data on what works. These modern researchers are also testing the relationships between DDR and pertinent issues such as the “combatant agency, peace agreements, transitional justice, SSR and state-building.” Muggah tells us that more than 60 DDR processes have taken place around the world since the early 1990s, most in post-conflict environments of various contexts. The preoccupation with such processes has progressively broadened from the ‘minimalist’ approach towards the ‘maximalist’ approach. As DDR is an “inherently political and politicizing process, [designed to] reinforce and extend the reach and legitimacy of state authority,” it has increasingly come under the scrutiny of political and social scientists.

He says that in its contribution to development in post-conflict environments, DDR is:

designed to stem war recurrence, reduce military expenditure, stimulate spending on social welfare, prevent spoilers from disrupting peace processes disrupt command control of armed groups and prevent resort to weapons of war.¹⁸¹

In identifying the trends progressively evolving through trial and frequent error during the implementation of the over 60 DDR process since the early 90s, as with Kilroy 2010, he sees a consensus settling on the importance of national ownership. Secondly, he sees that DDR is no longer viewed simply as a technical programme, but as “a technology of stabilization and state-building...”

but one replete with political, economic, institutional and infrastructural, and social complexity and

179 Human security, having been the DDR practitioner overarching guiding principle from the mid-nineties, is an increasingly disputed concept. This particularly since the refocus on security post-9/11, and also in light of a growing cognisance of the implications of its perceived Western value relativism on regional cultural and religious sensitivities, is notably receiving contracting mention in the DDR focused literature by the pragmatic and rationalist school of analysis, of which Muggah might be counted. Despite the commitment of the General Assembly in September 2012, to continue to discuss Human security, the author, in discussions with senior UN secretariat staff in late 2012 was told that the Human Security Concept is dead; killed largely by Japanese over possessiveness and pushiness in the General Assembly.

180 Muggah 2010, Op sit

181 Muggah 2010, Op sit

limitations.¹⁸² He sees hope in that the complexity and context specificity of DDR interventions are being recognised.

In considering the evolution of policy, Muggah notes the UN initiative in producing the IDDRS and how this prescriptive policy reflects the tensions between the UN approach to DDR and national ownership… often a difficult concept to maintain while insisting on international standards. He also highlights the danger of such a collection of good-practice guidance contributing to ‘template-thinking’ inhibiting flexibility. As in Kilroy 2010, the contribution of SIDDR is mentioned as helpful in underlining the complexity of DDR and its relationship with many crosscutting issues such as SSR and transitional justice. Two other major policy documents mentioned are the Paris Commitments and the Paris Principles on children associated with fighting forces and UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on women associated with armed conflict.¹⁸³

While acknowledging the struggle for results, Muggah contends that practitioners need to support their work with an improved regime of evidence-based analysis and evaluation using appropriate metrics to ensure that impacts and outcomes are achieved. In reviewing the topical programming debates, he considers the implementation dilemma; budget, resources and time versus clear best practice towards more sustainable outcomes, of targeting the ex-combatant versus the broader community. He considers the approach of ‘second generation peacekeeping’ and ‘stabilization’ missions and feels that the jury is still out as regards their efficiency. As regards theoretical innovation, Muggah contends that the imperatives of practice are driving research. Moving beyond the first generational focus on the institutional aspects and rational agency models, the ‘second wave’ of theoretical enquiry is testing assumptions, comparative analysis and the application of rigorous empirical methodologies of political and social science including in attempting to refine appropriate metrics of reintegration success and failure. Muggah’s closing paragraph reiterates the need for humility and effective communications in considering what can be realistically achieved by DDR. A strident and articulate critic, Muggah’s soft spot for the struggling DDR practitioner is, as always, evident in his constructive and encouraging optimism.

Drawing from the recommendations of SIDDR, Colletta et al in their Interim Stabilisation, consider the value, in appropriate circumstance, in the context of armed groups in the volatile immediate post-conflict period, of having the option of providing interim stabilisation measures, ISMs or IS

182 Dean Piedmont of UNDP asks the intriguing question if DDR is intrinsically a political process or is there an emerging dynamic of political DDR, constructed around the process? October 2012

183 Paris Principles and Paris Commitments on Children Associated with Armed Forces and Armed Groups, Feb 2007. Security Council Resolution 1325, on Women, Peace and Security, October 2000.

measures.¹⁸⁴ Such ISMs are in fact CBMs offering a ‘breathing space’, and permitting the maturation of the peace at both the state level and the level of the community. Such measures, designed to specific contexts, while creating options for negotiators, may permit the continuation of the benefits of the relative security, camaraderie, cohesiveness and mutual support and hopefully mutual encouragement for participation by the armed group, a de facto community, in the process.¹⁸⁵ ISMs may permit a period of orientation and adjustment, perhaps in “a holding-pattern,” to the changing political and social post-conflict environment for the state, the ex-combatants to be engaged in DDR and/or SSR and for the broader community, facilitating the transition from a prioritisation on security to development. The study offers a series of case-study examples highlighting the pros and cons of efforts undertaken in addition to the complexity of the design and implementation of context specific measures. These case studies include amongst others, Hun Sen’s pragmatic “Win-Win Approach” in taming the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia in the mid-nineties; the agricultural engagement option offered to members of the LRA in Uganda and the prolonged cantonments of the Maoist army while maintaining its structural integrity after the 2006 CPA in Nepal.

While the concept of ISMs makes sense, the reality is more complex. The tendency for the disarming and demobilising forces availing themselves of ISMs to seek strategic security and political benefits from the opportunities, particularly in some of the cases cited, is clear. While the Cambodian example is, with humanitarian, human rights and justice based reservations, highly successful, in Uganda, the LRA consolidated and re-launched their campaign of terror, spreading across Central Africa in the

‘cockroach effect.’ In Nepal, the Maoist remained six years in cantonment forging their MLA into a better trained, more cohesive and determined force, leveraging the political environment so that they, over time, achieved most of their original goals, to the extent that now, even generous attempts to ‘buy them off’ are faltering, leaving Nepal in a political shambles.

Piedmont considers ISMs in Afghanistan and South Sudan seeing them as contributing to an “enabling environment [while] the peace dividend can take root.”¹⁸⁶ In a “structural” approach in Afghanistan (2004-2006) ex-combatants remained under military command re-tasked as civilian de-miners. In South Sudan for 2006-2010 a strategic approach was adopted through the launch of an interim DDR

184 Nat J. Colletta, Jens Samuelsson Schjølien & Hannes Berts, Interim Stabilisation: Balancing Security and Development in post-Conflict Peacebuilding, Folke Bernadotte Academy, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Sweden, 2008

185 See Bleie and Shrestha, Op cit

186 Dean Piedmont, “From War to Peace: From Soldier to Peacebuilder: Interim Stabilisation Measures in Afghanistan and South Sudan,”

Journal of Peacebuilding and Development, Routledge, Oct 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/154231666.3012.719404 (accessed April, 01.2013)

process focusing on specific special needs groups, thus laying the groundwork for what would be recognised as a phased process leading to a more comprehensive DDR programme.

Prinz in a related study considers the element of the cohesiveness of the armed group, in a more specific focus on Non State Armed Groups (NSAGs), as an angle that is worth factoring into UN DDR programme design.¹⁸⁷ The value of the cohesiveness that ex-combatants retained from their camaraderie in and commitment to the armed group is underestimated in the anxiety of DDR practitioners to disassociate the ex-combatants from the armed group.¹⁸⁸ The cohesiveness offers a significant coping mechanism in retaining elements of the supportive camaraderie associated with the group and if harnessed appropriately can contribute to socio-economic reintegration. Programme implementers have on occasion, seen this cohesiveness as an asset in relation to the reintegration of female ex-combatants in light of the particular constraints that they have experienced in certain contexts (e.g. Sierra Leone, Liberia and Nepal). Prinz notes the reticence to apply the same logic to male ex-combatants and suggests that this seems to reflect an issue of distorted masculinities on the part of the practitioner.

The Gender perspective in DDR has been the focus of much attention and ‘mainstreaming’ in the evolution of UN DDR theory, including in the IDDRS, and one that planners and practitioners are perceived to have been grappling with in a reasonably successful manner. However, E. Molloy suggests, drawing from her post-structural analysis to “read between the lines” of the UN institutional discourse as reflected in the language of the gender perspective in IDDRS, that the attention given to gender represents an awareness of the complex issues that include power structures, identities and norms.¹⁸⁹ However, in considering the passivity of the language used in IDDRS in offering guidance on addressing the gender perspective in DDR, it does not represent a genuine attempt to instigate

“action for social transformation.” She suggests that it is “seen to walk the difficult gendered tightrope between addressing traditional imbalance of power and preventing further conflict...” and that in the prioritisation of achieving peace it can be seen as “a tangential issue” that can put that objective at risk.

From the author’s perspective, what a post-structural analysis of the language perhaps does not reflect is the determination of many programme planners and practitioners to deliver the spirit of the

187 Vanessa Prinz, Group Cohesion in Non-State Armed Groups Gains and Challenges of Group Reintegration of Former Combatants in Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR) Processes, Hamburg, July 2012

Shibuya suggests that Hoffman, African Affairs 2005 also examines this point from a different angle. Shibuya comments on an early draft of this chapter, Op cit

189 Elizabeth Molloy, Gender and the Discourse of DDR: a Post-structural Analysis of the Gendered Discourse of the IDDRS and the Post Conflict Situation, EGID, University of London, 2012.

commitment to the gender perspective in DDR programmes, as in the UNIRP in Nepal that will be considered in the next section.