CHALLENGES OF PEACE BUILDING AND SECURITY IN THE
ECOWAS SUB - REGION:"THE SIERRA LEONE PERSPECTIVE"
INAUGURAL LECTURES AT THE NATIONAL WAR COLLEGE OF THE
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
DELIVERED BY HIS EXCELLENCY ALHAJI DR AHMAD TEJAN KABBAH
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SIERRA LEONE
THURSDAY, 21ST SEPTEMBER 2006
Your Excellency Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,
Excellencies, Colleague Heads of State and Government,
Governors and Traditional Rulers
Honourable Ministers,
Senators and Members of the House of Representatives
Excellencies, Members of the Diplomatic and Consular Corps,
Chief of Defence Staff of the Nigerian Armed Forces,
and Service Chiefs,
Commandant of the National War College,
Military Commanders and Officers of the Nigerian Armed Forces,
Participants of the National War College Course 15,
Distinguished Guests,
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I would like to thank the Commander-in-Chief of the Nigerian Armed Forces, my brother and colleague President, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Commandant and members of Staff of the National War College, for inviting me to deliver the 15th inaugural lecture on the theme, "Challenges of Peacebuilding and Security in the ECOWAS Sub Region: The Sierra Leonean Perspective." I consider the invitation to address this prestigious institution a singular honour not only to me personally but to Sierra Leone.
This is obviously a Nigerian College. However, given the increasing number of participants from other African countries, it could also be described as an African college. Established in 1992, it is already ranked among the leading African institutions of higher military education south of the Sahara. I understand that the College has also received participants from Asia and Europe - an indication of the quality of its training programmes. I have no doubt that it will continue to serve Nigeria and Africa well by contributing to the security and stability of our Continent and to the maintenance of international peace and security.
ECOWAS and Peace-keeping in Sierra Leone
As President of Sierra Leone, which recently emerged from more than a decade of an unprecedented brutal armed conflict, this forum personally affords a unique opportunity to express my country's indebtedness to the political leadership of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the gallant officers and men and women of the Nigerian Armed Forces for sacrificing their lives in ECOMOG in the service of Sierra Leone during the bitter eleven years rebel conflict in my country. Indeed the government and people of the Federal Republic of Nigeria by sacrificing precious Nigerian lives to bring peace and stability to Sierra Leone, demonstrated their commitment to the promotion of regional peace and stability. To all intents and purposes ECOMOG led by Nigeria and with the help of God, saved Sierra Leone at a critical stage of the conflict. It paved the way for the deployment of the United Nations Peace Keeping Mission (UNAMSIL), as well as the military Assistance of the United Kingdom. I recall in particular, the professionalism and exemplary leadership of past ECOMOG Commanders like the late General Maxwell Khobe who was subsequently seconded to the Sierra Leone Army and served as its Chief of Defence Staff. He and many of his compatriots played a leading role in the reconstruction of our Armed Forces following the ousting of the Junta and the RUF rebel regime. The people of Sierra Leone will remain forever grateful to him and others who helped bring the conflict to an end. The mission was not merely to restore constitutional authority but more importantly, to provide safety and security for the people of Sierra Leone against the aggression by the RUF rebels and their cohorts beyond our borders as well as renegades of the-so-called Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC). Further, in conjunction with the United Nations and the International Community, ECOWAS succeeded in halting the violence through peace enforcement, peacekeeping and peaceful negotiation of the conflict, which has led to current peace-building activities.
The significance of the role that ECOMOG played in resolving the conflict in Sierra Leone became even more evident from the reaction of the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan who on learning in December 1999, that President Obasabjo had decided to withdraw Nigerian troops from ECOMOG, as UN troops were to be deployed in the country immediately expressed concern about "the repercussions, which a premature withdrawal of ECOMOG could have on the security situation in Sierra Leone". In a letter to the UN Security Council, he recalled his appeal to President Obasanjo to review his decision. He also had extensive contacts with other leaders in the ECOWAS sub-region to impress on their minds the need to maintain a sizeable ECOMOG presence in Sierra Leone to perform the vital functions of providing security in Freetown, the Lungi International Airport and protecting my government. I myself also had a meeting with President Obasanjo and pleaded with him to review his decision.
It was not easy especially at a time when there were exaggerated reports in the media that Nigeria was spending about a million US dollars a day in ECOMOG operations in Sierra Leone and some detractors were questioning the legality of ECOMOG`s intervention in the Sierra Leone conflict. However, confirmation of the legality and usefulness of ECOMOG`s intervention in Sierra Leone has come from no less a source than the Security Council itself which, on several occasions, had welcomed and commended the role of ECOMOG. For instance, in authorizing the establishment of UNAMSIL, the Council reiterated its "appreciation for the indispensable role which ECOMOG forces continued to play in the maintenance of security, stability and protection of the people of Sierra Leone". For the first time in the history of the Security Council, acting under Chapter VIII of the Charter, the Council authorized a regional organization, namely ECOWAS and its monitoring group ECOMOG, to monitor the strict implementation of the Council's arms and petroleum embargo. I thought I should mention this aspect of the Peace Keeping role of ECOMOG as a preface to my substantive remarks on the challenges of Peace building and security in the ECOWAS sub-region, the theme I have been asked to speak about today.
The Concept of Peace-building and Security
The topic "Challenges of Peace-building and Security in the ECOWAS Sub-Region: the Sierra Leonean Perspective" has two words that are fundamental to my address, and which need conceptual definitions. These are "Peace-building" and "Security."
Peace-building
The United Nations has presented a prescriptive and conceptual definition of Peace-building. In February 2001, the Security Council of the United Nations recognized that "peace-building is aimed at preventing the outbreak, the recurrence or continuation of armed conflict and therefore encompasses a wide range of political, developmental, humanitarian and human rights programmes and mechanisms. These actions should focus on fostering sustainable institutions and processes in areas such as sustainable development, the eradication of poverty and inequalities, transparent and accountable governance, the promotion of democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law, and the promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence".
The concept of (Post-conflict) peace-building not only focuses on the structural analysis of the root causes of the conflict but aims at fostering economic and social cooperation with the purpose of building confidence among previously warring parties and laying the foundation for a durable peace. According to one informed commentator, the infrastructure of peace-building is a 'process structure' that seeks to transform a war system characterized by deeply divided, hostile and violent relationships, into a peace system characterized by just and interdependent relationship with the capacity to seek non violent means for expressing and dealing with conflicts (Lederach, 1997). This process structure anchors on reconciliation and the redefinition and restoration of broken relationships.
Security
Security as a concept is characterized by its ambiguity. Due to the state centric nature of the "international" system and due also to the historic preoccupation of international relations with wars, the concept of security has traditionally been militarily defined. Thus, security is conceptualized in terms of "preservation of independence and sovereignty of nation states". Walter Lippman, for example considers a country to be secure to the extent that it is "not in danger of having to sacrifice 'core values'. Such core values denote the preservation of territorial integrity and sovereignty of the state. Security here therefore is the ability to deter an attack, or to defeat it.
The current world view concept of Human Security which places individual human beings (the citizens of a country) at the center of security transcends the absence of war. In other words, implicit in the classical definition, security is the protection of the state, whereas, what is now also critical is the protection and welfare of the individual citizens living in a state, which is the fundamental focus of Human Security. In other words Human Security is a 'people-centered concept'. It is based on the same premise as the related concepts of human rights and human development all of which place the human being as the principal object of concern regardless of race, religion, creed, colour, ideology or nationality.
The Human Development Report listed seven components or values of human security and the following threats to them are economic, food, health, environmental, community and political security.
From the perspective of Sierra Leone, security is considered in its holistic sense as, "covering all aspects including the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state, the security of natural resources, the protection of the revenue generating capacity of the state and the social and material wellbeing of the people….also guaranteeing the freedom of the people from threats to their persons, property and democratic way of life as well as freeing them from the scourges of war, poverty and social injustice" (Sierra Leone National Security Policy Paper, Dec. 2000).
Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen, for the purpose of this lecture, these two fundamental keywords of Peace-building and Security as conceptually defined will form the basis of my presentation.
Challenges to Peace-building and Security in Sierra Leone
For Sierra Leone, at the present moment, the terms Peace-building and Security denote "A process of creating the conditions for social reconstruction and economic recovery and sustainable development".
The Sierra Leone Armed Conflict, which started in 1991 and ended in 2002, was a product of long years of state failure, and bad governance. The conflict had its roots in bad governance, violation of basic rights and endemic poverty. Government accountability was non-existent, freedom of expression and dissent had been crushed, and each regime became increasingly impervious to the wishes and needs of the people. Democracy and the rule of law were dead. By 1991, Sierra Leone was a deeply divided society and full of the potential for violence.
By the end of the brutal war nearly 50,000 Sierra Leoneans had lost their lives, thousands had been maimed, a quarter of the population had been made refugees, a similar number had been internally displaced, the economy was in shambles, poverty had been entrenched. Hatred, vengeance and a culture of violence had divided communities further, and the country ranked in the lowest position in the United Nations Human Development Index.
The challenges to Peace-building and Security remain enormous for Sierra Leone as the country strives to transform itself from a war-torn society to a rejuvenated nation capable of meeting the basic needs of its people. Strictly speaking, peace building does not begin only when peacekeeping operations end and peacekeepers such as those of UNAMSIL or ECOMOG leave the area of armed conflict. For instance, our National Commission for Reconstruction, Resettlement and Reintegration (NCRRR) and its successor the National Commission for Social Action (NaCSA) performed their peace building-related functions in tandem with the peacekeeping activities of ECOMOG and the United Nations. While security was and still is at the top of the agenda of my Government, the livelihood of the people, in terms of food and basic social services, has remained a national priority. The challenges to peace-building and security for the country therefore encompass the institution of measures to address the root causes of the conflict, putting in place mechanisms to prevent the recurrence of violent conflict and creating a conducive environment for reconciliation and socio-economic development. To achieve these goals, Government, in close collaboration with the International Community, NGOs, bilateral and multilateral partners embarked upon a broad programme of governance reform as a means of obtaining sustained human and material development focusing on establishing a safe and secure environment, reducing poverty, rebuilding a democratic political system, improving the legal system, combating corruption, promoting human rights and enhancing grass-roots participation in national development. The major components of this programme include:
o National Recovery and Rehabilitation
o Public Sector Reform
o Fighting Corruption
o Decentralisation and Local Government Reform
o Security Sector Reform
o Poverty Reduction Strategy
o Justice, the Rule of Law and Human Rights
o Community Disarmament and Small Arms Control
o Youth Empowerment/Employment
From the foregoing, there is evidence that considerable progress has been made towards the consolidation of peace and improving security in our country since the end of the war. However, challenges to peace-building and security in one state often transcend the experiences and capabilities of individual states and may encompass an entire region and the International Community. Responses to such challenges may therefore demand the involvement of regional and international actors. An analysis of the challenges to peace-building and security in the ECOWAS sub-region will not be complete without a regional and international perspective. I will be remiss in my lecture therefore, if I fail to discuss the role of ECOWAS in peace-building and security in the sub-region.
ECOWAS in Peace-building and Security in the Sub-region
As the saying goes, there can be no peace and security without development and no development without peace and security. The same goes for ECOWAS. In speaking about the challenges of both economic development and peace and security in our sub region therefore, one must not forget that ECOWAS rests on two inseparable pillars namely, economic development and political stability. In our view, ECOWAS is an instrument for promoting economic development as well as security and political stability.
When the Founding Fathers established ECOWAS in 1975 however, what was uppermost on their minds was economic integration as a means of improving the lives of their people. As stated in the Founding Treaty of 1975, the objectives of the organisation were -
" To promote cooperation and integration leading to the establishment of an economic union in West Africa in order to raise the living standards of its people and to maintain and enhance economic stability, foster relations among member states, and contribute to the progress and development of the African continent".
The subsequent fourteen chapters and sixty-five articles of the Founding Treaty equally focused exclusively on economic matters. From its inception therefore, ECOWAS was perceived purely as an economic enterprise. In the light of rising tensions and increasing conflicts in the sub-region however, ECOWAS was compelled to adapt and reorient itself to issues of security and stability at the same time as it was preoccupied with economic integration. Available evidence shows that in the period between 1970 and 1990, West Africa alone had a total number of 31 successful military takeovers, 21 attempted coups and 54 plots to overthrow governments. Most of these political upheavals spilled over to neighbouring states in terms of refugee flows and sub-regional instability. The Mano River Basin itself is just emerging from brutal and destructive intrastate violent conflicts, which started in 1989, and destabilized Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea. Currently, La Cote D'Voire, is embroiled in a fragile peace. The region has also experienced low intensity armed conflict in Guinea Bissau, Mali and Senegal. ECOWAS was therefore confronted by the dual challenge of adaptability and effective response to the security concerns of the sub-region. The organisation responded by taking measures to create institutions, mechanisms and procedures aimed at promoting peace and security in the sub-region such as the signing and implementation of the following agreements:
" The Protocol on Non-aggression in 1978
" The protocol on Mutual Assistance in Defence in 1981
" The 1991 Declaration of Principles
" The Revised 1993 ECOWAS Treaty
" The 1998 Declaration of a Moratorium on the Importation, Exportation and Manufacture of Light Weapons in West Africa and
" The Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management, Resolution, Peace-building and Security in 1999.
ECOWAS symbolizes the interrelationship between economic development, peace and security. For instance, the preamble to its protocol relating to Mutual Assistance in Defence, signed in Freetown in 1981, states clearly that "economic progress cannot be achieved unless the necessary conditions for security are ensured in all Member States of the Community." The linkage is also enunciated in Article 4 of the ECOWAS Revised Treaty which states for example, that "Members affirm and declare adherence to the maintenance of regional peace, stability and security through the promotion of good neighbourliness", and that "the promotion of a peaceful environment is a prerequisite for economic development". The establishment of ECOMOG and its interventions in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea Bissau must be seen in the context of this same fundamental principle.
On the whole, it can be said that ECOWSAS has responded fairly well to both the challenge of adaptability and the prevention and management of conflicts in the sub-region. The record shows that it has made every effort to address the challenge of adaptation. For instance, the decision to strengthen ECOMOG as an organ to assist the ECOWAS Mediation and Security Council is a direct response to new and emerging peace and security realities in the sub-region. So is the establishment of the Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management, Resolution, Peacekeeping and Security. In the Protocol to that Mechanism, it states that the Community had been concerned about the proliferation of conflicts which it says "constitute a threat to the peace and security in the African Continent, and undermines our efforts to improve the living standards of our peoples." ECOWAS has not only adapted itself to new realities by revising its Treaty, it has found it necessary to enhance the 1999 Protocol by incorporating provisions concerning issues such as prevention of internal crises, democracy and good governance, the rule of law and human rights. Its concern about the increasing incidence of conflicts caused by religious intolerance, political marginalization and non-transparent elections has also been reflected in relevant instruments and documents. The question now is how does it keep responding to these realities while keeping in tact its primary objective of promoting economic cooperation and integration?
Another challenge, perhaps the most formidable one, facing ECOWAS in the areas of peace-building and security is the challenge of capacity and capability. By this I mean the problem of resources for peace-building and for security. How, for instance, can we control and secure our borders if the military is not fully trained and equipped to perform its constitutional responsibility for the protection of the State? How can the Police maintain public law and order without adequate training and equipment to facilitate their mobility? How can we motivate our civil and public servants if we cannot pay them well or provide them with adequate support?
The socio-economic status of the country is often reflected in its capacity to provide adequate safety and security for its population. An important part of our peace-building process in Sierra Leone has been the training and restructuring of the military forces. We have benefited considerably from the International Military Assistance Training Programme (IMATT) led by the United Kingdom. Action has been taken to upgrade and strengthen the training facilities at Benguema and the establishment of the Horton Academy. I also initiated Operation Pebu, a housing project for our military. The idea is that in providing training to improve the skills of security personnel, we also have to provide equipment and transportation facilities as well as basic services such as housing for them.
Many of the threats to peace in our sub-region emerge from poverty and economic and social instability. From the Sierra Leone perspective, the greatest threat to peace-building and security is the prevalence of poverty. This is why we must address security and peace in the context of our poverty reduction programmes. Pervasive poverty is clearly a potential source of instability and therefore a serious threat to the consolidation of peace in the country. In June 2001, the Government developed a poverty reduction strategy in the form of an Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (I-PRSP) whose main objective was to reduce poverty through the implementation of responsive poverty reduction programmes and the promotion of pro-poor economic growth. In October 2002, the Government launched the National Recovery Strategy (NRS) whose focus was on consolidating state authority and peace-building, the protection of human rights, the promotion of reconciliation, reintegration and resettlement, the rebuilding of communities and improving service delivery and economic recovery. In February 2005, these two poverty reduction initiatives were followed by the inauguration of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) whose major thrust is the reduction of poverty through the promotion of good governance, security and peace; the promotion of pro-poor sustainable growth for food security and job creation and the promotion of human development.
These concerns are reiterated in the 1999 Protocol, where ECOWAS leaders acknowledge in Article 25, that poverty alleviation and promotion of social dialogue are important factors for peace. It says, "Member States undertake to provide the basic human needs of their populations" and in Article 26, that they should undertake to fight poverty effectively in their respective countries and within the Community, especially by "creating an environment to provide investment and the development of a dynamic and competitive private sector".
The burden of debt has been recognized as another factor inhibiting the capacity of African countries to create an enabling environment for peace and development. Among the recommendations the UN Secretary-General suggested a few years ago in his report to the Security Council on the causes of conflict and the promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in Africa was that creditors should seriously consider, in response to the request of the African Union, cancelling the entire debt of the poorest African countries and convert into grants, all remaining official bilateral debt of the poorest African countries. Another important recommendation is that donors should try to ensure that half of their aid to Africa is spent in Africa and should be delivered on time. These measures are all necessary to advance our peace-building activities and meeting our security needs.
The challenge of capacity and capability can also be discussed from the point of view of the changes that ECOWAS has itself instituted in response to new realities, especially in the area of security. In this regard, the following questions are relevant. How can we maintain the institutions we have created in the areas of security, conflict management, mediation, peacekeeping operations and conflict resolution? Do we have the means and capacity to fully implement the noble ideals we have enunciated in the various protocols relating to security matters? Take for example, peacekeeping and the idea of an ECOWAS Standby Force under the aegis of ECOMOG. Each Member State of the Community needs resources for training its armed forces. Unless the individual troop contributors for the Standby Force are trained and equipped they will not be in a position to participate meaningfully in the activities of such a Force. The alternative would be to rely on a few Member States with the necessary capability. This of course will be inconsistent with the principle of burden-sharing. One or two States should not carry all the burden, as we experienced during ECOMOG's operations in Liberia and Sierra Leone. So, there is need to strengthen the capacity of national contingents. The establishment of this College and similar homegrown institutions should, in my view, help us in meeting the challenge of capacity building or training. Giving individuals from other countries the opportunity to train here is an indication that we are well on the way to enhancing the capacity of individual member states to fulfill their national security responsibilities as well as those of the Community as a whole. We should face the difficulties of reconciling the peace-building and security needs of our Community with determination. We should strengthen military-civilian relations. In this regard, I understand that participants in the courses offered in the National War College are not only senior officers of the armed forces and the Police but also senior civil servants. What better example do we need to demonstrate the integrated approach to peace-building which, as noted earlier, includes a process of economic recovery and sustainable development. I believe that it is possible for us in ECOWAS and indeed mandatory to continue to pursue simultaneously or in parallel the objectives of promoting economic cooperation and integration (peace-building) and peacekeeping, conflict prevention, mediation and security. However, we should not allow political instability and conflict, especially armed conflict to distract us. We should not allow these negative forces to squander our human and material resources that we desperately need to build the blocks of sustainable development. ECOWAS has made tremendous progress in promoting economic cooperation and integration. However, it could have done better, much better if the sub-region had not been plagued by prolonged armed conflicts and political instability over the last sixteen years. We have had far too many wars, far too much destruction of economic and social infrastructure. The negative impact of these prolonged cycles of conflicts on our human resources cannot be over-emphasized. In Sierra Leone for instance, the eleven years of rebel war and the devastation it brought in its wake dragged the country, without exaggeration, at least 25 years back in terms of economic and social development. Thanks to the United Nations, ECOWAS and other international and regional organizations, as well as bilateral partners, Sierra Leone is being described today as a model of peaceful transition from conflict to post-conflict recovery.
As you know, Sierra Leone is one of the two countries on the agenda of the newly established United Nations Peace-building Commission. In a sense, Sierra Leone is a symbol of the challenges as well as the hope of peace-building, security and stability in the ECOWAS sub-region and Africa as a whole. We have come a long way. We also recognize that we still have a long way to go. However, with the resilience that became the national symbol of our people during the dark days of the 90s, I have no doubt that we shall succeed in restoring lasting peace, security and prosperity in the country. Of course the other beneficiaries of that success will be Nigerians, Ghanaians, Guineans, Liberians, Togolese and others in this great family of nations of the ECOWAS sub-region.
I thank you.