OBJETIVO DEL MONITOREO HÍDRICO INSTITUCIONAL

Since the mid-1990s, a body of literature discussing the security sector institutions as subject for being reformed or developed has emerged in fields of peacebuilding, state-building and nation-building.

25

Since the end of the Cold War structure, the international community began to engage in efforts to reconstruct conflict-affected societies. UN- and/or US-led nation building interventions took place in various war-affected societies such as Afghanistan, Cambodia, Bosnia, El Salvador, Iraq, Kosovo, Haiti, Mozambique, Somalia, and Timor Leste. The emergence of the concept of ‘state-building’ in peacebuilding context emerged as early as 1992 when the UN’s An Agenda for Peace proposed “reforming or strengthening government institutions”. (Boutrous- Ghali, 1992)

The concept of ‘failed states’ (and ‘fragile states’) was often employed in developing policy discourses for such international interventions and studies on such interventions. (Ghani and Lockhart, 2008; Helman and Ratner, 1992; OECD/DCD, 2005) In the state-building and peacebuilding literature, state security sector actors became to be treated as subjects to be reformed and developed. As discussed more in detail later in the section, the SSR concept is an example of policy discourses which regarded the security sector actors as institution rather than political entity which can influence and interact with local politics significantly.

The concept of SSR emerged in the late 1980s in the development assistance context. Initially, in response to the wave of democratisation in Africa, scholars such as Ball discussed the issue of re-organising the security sector from a public spending point of view, in a wider context of structural adjustment. (Ball, 1988) Since then, the body of SSR literature has grown significantly both in terms of its volume and variety. Since the end of the 1990s, the international assistance community in Europe started to apply the SSR discourse in post-conflict reconstruction and democratisation contexts by international assistance agencies and think tanks including Bonn International Centre for Conversion (BICC), the UK Government and its Department for International Development (DFID), the Geneva Centre for Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF). (Ball, 1998; Chalmers, 2000; Chanaa, 2002; Hendrickson, 1999; Wulf, 2000a, 2000b)

During the early 2000’s, SSR discourses were further developed by international development assistance agencies. The main drivers of the SSR discourse development included the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and

26

Development (OECD), the British Department for International Development (DFID) and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische (GTZ). These development assistance bodies started to link the issues of development and security, and significantly contributed to the development of SSR discourses by regarding SSR as a possible tool for establishing good governance and security in assistance recipient countries SSR. (DFID, 2000a; GTZ, 2000; OECD/DAC, 2000) In 2004, OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC), chaired by the UK at that time, stated endorsed the policy statement and paper on security system reform. (OECD/DAC, 2005) Subsequently, OECD/DAC developed standard policy guidance and operational handbook that provide a comprehensive and systemic policy overview of SSR as an international assistance policy option. (OECD/DAC, 2008) The European donor community spearheaded the SSR policy development process, followed by other international community members such as the United Nations and the United States.

The conceptualisation of SSR had been refined further and contextualized by being applied to varying settings not only in development but also in post- authoritarian and post-conflict contexts. (Bryden and Hänggi, 2004) For instance, in post-authoritarian context, SSR policies have been adopted by the EU and NATO in the Balkans, Eastern Europe and South Caucasus. (Ebnöther et al., 2007; Ebnöther and Gustenau, 2004) Those SSR efforts were often implemented along the other EU and/or NATO partnership frameworks under the overall eastern expansion of those regional organisations. SSR assistance was implemented in the spheres of defence, police and justice.

Since the late 2000’s, SSR has increasingly become a policy discourse in peacebuilding context. In particular, the United Nations developed its own SSR policy framework by placing it as a key component within their peacebuilding policies and activities. (United Nations, 2014, 2013a, 2013b, 2012a, 2012b) Reflecting policy frameworks set out by the OECD/DAC, the UN’s SSR efforts in the peacebuilding context focuses on justice and capacity development of justice institutions. While the European countries and donor communities spearheaded in the formation of SSR discourses, the United States has developed their SSR approach by building on the US government’s foreign assistance experiences in security, peace and governance fields. In 2009, their policy framework and

27

guiding principles were jointly published by the Department of State, Department of Defence and US Agency for International Development (USAID). (USAID et al., 2009)

While the diverse assistance providers and policy makers have involved in the SSR policy discourse development, the SSR discourses within the assistance community can be divided into three approaches.

2.2.2.1 Military-focused SSR approach

The military-focused SSR thinking takes a static, institutional approach to the reform of security sector agencies, particularly the defence system. Their emphasis in reference to this type of SSR is on civil-military relations and development of military capacity of a country in concern. The establishment of democratic control of armed forces, in particular, military forces, is the aim of military-focused SSR discourse. In short, the building of military institutions is the central agenda of this category of SSR discourse.

Since the end of the Cold War structure, SSR has been increasingly implemented in the former Communist bloc, particularly in the eastern European states. Such SSR often takes a form of modernisation of the defence system.7 _{By enhancing} the civil-military relations in the NATO standard, the chain of command and operation will be smoothened once Partner country joins in co-operation. As prioritising and focusing on ‘professionalisation’ of armed forces,8 _{merely military,} in a country of concern, NATO’s Partnership for Peace (PfP) was launched in January 1994, with a purpose to integrate Central and Eastern European countries into NATO, aiming at increasing transparency in national defence

7 _{Since the late 1980s, NATO has engaged in military reform in the eastern European countries. The end}

of the Cold War brought more opportunities for the Western allies to deal with Central Eastern European countries. NATO focuses on military issues, under the auspices of the PfP (NATO, 1994). The PfP has developed with a strategic aim to support democratisation of the Central Eastern European countries, supporting for “reforms to establish democratic systems of government based on the rules of law and the respect for human rights” (NATO, 1991). NATO assists the former socialist counties establish democratic civil-military relationship and enhancing the military capacities of the partner countries in those countries.

8 _{The professionalism, however, often does not include comprehensive education and training on}

international humanitarian law, which are significant to differentiate irregular bandit-type of armed forces and legitimate military forces.

28

planning and military budgeting; ensuring democratic control of national armed forces; and developing, over the longer term, Partner country forces that are better able to operate with those of NATO members(NATO, 1994).

Outside Europe, bilateral donors are the main military assistance providers through technical assistance. They are often narrowly focused on transfer military equipment and skills. Such military assistance often targets less developed countries in Asia and Africa. For instance, the USA provides military assistance to foreign countries through the International Military Education and Training (IMET) programmes in strategically crucial countries including Georgia and the Philippines. The UK’s British Military Advisory Training Team (BMATT) has provided support to several Southern Africa countries such as Namibia and Zimbabwe in the transformation of various armed forces into a united national force. (Bennett, 1990) In Namibia, BMATT personnel developed training curricula for military officers and trained the trainers. The UK also helped to set up the Zimbabwe Staff College when the unified Zimbabwean force was created. In South Africa and Zimbabwe, BMATT personnel assisted in integration of official armed forces and guerrilla and other unofficial forces into a single entity. In South Africa and Zimbabwe, BMATT personnel assisted in integration of official armed forces and guerrilla and other unofficial forces into a single entity.

Apart from technical assistance, donors also provide assistance addressing institutional reform of the militaries in the transitional state. The main focus in the area is on civil-military relations, in which both civilian and military institutions engage in assistance (USAID, 1998). The British Ministry of Defence (MoD), for example, has provided technical assistance for education of democratic control of the armed forces in the Eastern European countries (DFID, 2000a, p. 67). Through its Outreach Programme, the British MoD has provided technical assistance for studies of democratic control of the armed forces, defence management practices, and planning and budgetary processes (DFID, 2000a). The UK also provides similar technical assistance to African countries through BMATTs and the secondment of military and civilian personnel from MoD to ministries of defence in Namibia, Sierra Leone, South Africa and Zimbabwe. The US Department of Defense finances the Africa Center for Strategic Studies which

29

is aimed to promote transparency, accountability of resource allocation of the defence sector and civil oversight of the armed forces(DFID, 2000a).

The main aim of this military-oriented SSR assistance is thus to enhance professionalism and capacity of military personnel. Technical assistance strictly focuses on the defence system and national security concerns, not community- based insecurity and individuals. Compared with previous military assistance as seen in the Cold War period, this military-oriented SSR assistance has not changed its focus and contents. The security concerns in this military-oriented SSR thinking is military threats to state, rather than non-military threats to states and individuals. In fact, there is a strong sense of rejection of people-oriented security thinking among some defence officials. For example, a British military officer said he was against integrated SSR discourses involving police and other non-military security agencies and claimed that SSR should concern only military organs.9 _{A security sector is defined narrowly and the justice and penal systems} are often looked over in the military-focused SSR discourse.

2.2.2.2 Development- and governance-focused SSR approach

The second group of the SSR thinking takes a development and governance approach. This category of SSR discourse evolved from the fields of development and governance assistance. Compared with the military-oriented SSR thinking, scholars of the development SSR camp such as Ball and Hendrickson regard SSR not as mere military matters, but more of a governance agenda(Ball, 1998; Hendrickson, 1999). Ball regards SSR as a critical component of sustainable economic and social development, good governance, conflict management between and within states, and arms limitation (Ball, 1998). Focusing on the economic, social and governance aspects of SSR, the main target of this school of SSR is developing countries.

Having its conceptual genesis in the development studies, this school of SSR encompasses human security perspectives in its principles. For the interests of particular donor agencies, there are several prominent literatures concerning the

30

development/governance SSR thinking. A few policy recommendation papers have been published recent years as to more extent development assistance agencies commit human security-related issues in developing countries and the demand of conceptualisation and guidance of practical implementation are increasing.

Hendrickson deepens the argument on empirical framework of SSR programme on security- and military-related issues, expanding the scope of SSR from state security to human security. Hendrickson sets the goal of SSR as not simply the establishment of civilian control over the military. Hendrickson claims that SSR will ultimately entail changes in bureaucratic cultures that are less dependent on the acquisition of new skills those on changes in attitude and patterns of interaction between civilian and military actors (Hendrickson, 1999). Thus, according to Hendrickson, it requires development agencies to simulate local initiative and to build consensus among relevant actors on the rationale for change. The governance approach that is narrowly and short-term focused on only strengthening the rule of law and civilians in managing and monitoring security sector is, therefore, regarded as counter-productive.

Ball claims that SSR involves fundamental issues of human security, including respect for human rights and international law. Ball has its significance in bridging between the commitment of development agency and SSR as the first and most comprehensive security sector-related survey (Ball, 1998). It also covers the experience of security sector-related issues in various countries, and the recent trends within the international community and among donor agencies both of development and of humanitarian. Linking security and poverty agendas, Ball claims that poverty reduction cannot succeed without SSR. Putting an emphasis on implementing good governance, Ball includes a broad range of organizations in a security sector, including judicial, legal and penal systems, and claims that there is a need of the attention to civilian institutions related to SSR, not only to armed forces (Ball, 1998).

In this wide range of SSR agenda, objectives of development- and governance- focused SSR are more than the modernisation of defence system, but more of governance agendas. Those objectives include the establishment of good

31

governance in security sector with transparency and civil control. The focus is put on more management and administration matters such as budgetary accountability of those institutions, the enhancement of professionalism and transparency of security sector agencies. Reflecting the variety in the areas of SSR assistance, SSR actors also include a wide range of institutions. For instance, the UK’s SSR assistance shows one of the most comprehensive approaches to SSR in transitional societies. The UK’s inclusive SSR policies include a wide range of actors such as the MoD, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), and the Home Office. The labour distribution is the following: the FCO sets the political framework, the MoD can provide direct help to the military, and the Home Office is to help with police reform. Sierra Leone serves as a pilot case of the joined-up SSR programme.

This development- and governance-oriented SSR approach has enabled development agencies to participate in security sector-related issues including political, social and economic matters, rather than solely focusing on security- and military-related issues. Consequently, the development/governance SSR discourse has rapidly developed in the recent years by development actors such as OECD/DAC, UNDP and DFID, reflecting the human security concept in the process. For instance, governance and poverty issues in Sierra Leone justify the DFID’s SSR intervention, which were formerly military-led agendas.

At a policy level, awareness of the implications of SSR policies to post-conflict societies has been growing among some donors. OECD/DAC, for instance, acknowledges the link between efforts to “support participation, democratisation and peacebuilding, through strengthened institutions of governance” in post- conflict societies (OECD/DAC, 1997, p. 37). In its new approach to SSR, OECD/DAC has increasingly integrated a human security concept into working principles of SSR policies. Adopting the human security concept, the OECD/DAC emphasises the nexus between security and development issues. Unlike other SSR policy guidelines, OECD/DAC clearly regards SSR as a key component of the human security agenda (OECD/DAC, 2005). The narrow scope of human security, i.e. the ‘Freedom from Fear’ approach, is adopted in these policies with focus on direct physical insecurities. Within its policy report, Security System Reform and Governance, OECD donors provide several working principles for

32

this human security oriented SSR (OECD/DAC, 2005). Reflecting human security in policy principles, the OECD/DAC report Security System Reform and Governance states that SSR should be:

 people-centred, locally owned and based on democratic norms and human rights principles and the rule of law, seeking to provide freedom from fear;

 seen as a framework to structure thinking about how to address diverse security challenges facing states and their populations through more integrated development and security policies and through greater civilian involvement and oversights;

 founded on activities with multi-sectoral strategies, based upon a broad assessment of the range of security needs of the people and the state;  developed adhering to basic principles underlying public sector reform

such as transparency and accountability; and

 implemented through clear processes and policies that aim to enhance the institutional and human capacity needed for security policy to function effectively (OECD/DAC, 2005, p. 12).

The OECD/DAC principles have been increasingly adopted by policy makers and practitioners in the international community both multilateral and bilateral donors. Whilst focusing on the human security approach, SSR policies include a wide range of works interlinking social, economic, and military agendas. Those works include conversion of military resources to civilian use, gender-analysis of SSR policies, DDR, and the issues of child soldiers and war economies (OECD/DAC, 2005, pp. 42–44). There is also an increasing claim in this governance SSR camp that more attention and sustainable efforts should be paid to reform judicial and penal system reforms such as the promotion of the rule of law, which requires long-term commitment and effort (Popkin, 2000). Development aid agencies such as the World Bank and UNDP have increasingly involved in the judicial system reform. The World Bank implements programmes in the area of administration of justice, primarily as regards legal reform. UNDP operates police reform

33

programmes in various post-crisis societies.10 _{UNDP/BCPR provides the police} in conflict-prone countries with technical assistance to develop “an accountable, equitable, effective, and rights respecting public service” (UNDP, 2002, p. 5).

2.2.2.3 Conflict management based SSR approach

The third group of SSR thinking regards SSR as a set of policy instruments that can contribute to conflict management. This was against the background that a number of conflict-affected countries such as Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) had undergone the building of new national army and the police under the policy slogan of SSR. Compared with the development/governance SSR discourse, what can be labelled as a conflict management SSR thinking by Chalmers offers a set of concrete SSR policies related to physical security of individuals unlike the military-oriented SSR. Chalmers has linked peacebuilding and SSR discourses, bringing physical security issues in the SSR discussions.

Chalmers employs a wider concept of SSR which includes socio-economic, governance and security dimensions. But, in comparison with the development and governance oriented SSR scholars such as Ball and Hendrickson (Ball, 1998; Hendrickson, 1999), Chalmers puts more focus on physical security aspects within a framework of SSR, such as DDR and community-based weapons collection programmes. (Chalmers, 2000) Chalmers regards security-related issues such as small arms control programmes as part of a holistic SSR approach, with more focus on individuals rather than institutions and institution-building as in the cases of the military- and development-oriented SSR discourses. (Chalmers, 2000)

While Chalmers’ focus is on direct physical insecurity, his scope of SSR and security sector actors are wider than the two approaches described earlier. By regarding security widely, Chalmers’ argument extends the range of activities of external actors much wider than the conventional militaristic, institution-centred

10 _{The countries include: Albania, Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador,}

Guatemala, Haiti, Indonesia, Kosovo, Liberia, Moldova, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan

34

approach. Chalmers defines security sector more widely than the military-