UNCLASSIFIED
SUBJECT: DEMOBILIZATION AND REINTEGRATION WORKSHOP
REF: STATE 039144
BACKGROUND
1. A two day conference on “Demobilization and Reintegration in Africa”, sponsored by USAID/REDSO, and the Bureau for Humanitarian Response and the Bureau for Africa, held in Nairobi, Kenya, March 20-21, attracted a wide audience of practitioners from the USG, international organizations, the international financial institutions, bilateral donors and international and local non-governmental organizations. Given the large number of conflicts in the region, and the on-going demand for the USG to be involved in demobilization and reintegration programs, the objectives of this meeting included:
A) To share lessons from the field about how demobilization and reintegration are implemented through the use of African case studies and country-specific discussions;
B) To learn how to set up a program that incorporates current cross cutting issues such as HIV/AIDS, gender, arms flows and security sector reform into USAID programming;
C) To better define our capacities and comparative advantages in the demobilization process;
D) To develop a framework for international coordination on demobilization.
2. For the purposes of this conference the term “demobilization” was used as a shorthand for a process which is defined as having four phases: disarmament, demobilization, reintegration and reconciliation. (DDRR) DDRR programs serve both short-term security objectives, to restore order and remove weapons from combatants, and longer-term objectives that involve the conversion of excessive military capacity, both human and financial into “peacetime” resources that can be productively used by society. Another long-term goal is to serve as part of an overall reform of the security sector of any given state.
3. The diversity of conference attendees, those of the USG and others, provided a forum of information sharing, collaboration, networking and general understanding about the complexity of demobilization and reintegration programs and the actors involved in this process. This mix added a special dimension to the program as it captured a wide range of technical expertise, experiences, and policies that are currently being used in this field.
4. The meeting featured plenary sessions about USAID experience, the theoretical underpinnings of demobilization and reintegration, and recognition of the impact of HIV/AIDS on the process of reintegrating soldiers to civilian life. Specific sessions explored the different forms of demobilization: demobilization programs after civil-war arising from peace accords, and demobilization arising from transitional situations where reform of the security sector required a downsizing of a country’s armed forces.
5. Ambassador Johnnie Carson opened the conference with a compelling talk about conflict in Africa. He noted that over half of the world’s active conflicts were concentrated in Africa involving 75% of the region. Conflict has devastated the lives of millions of Africans. when this is coupled with the HIV/AIDS epidemic in which ten times the number of Africans have died as those from conflict, it is clear that Africa has incurred a loss of human capital so great that the welfare and security of the region may be compromised unless we face the issues of armed conflict and loss of human capital in a systematic and effective manner. Demobilization and reintegration of soldiers and combatants affords an opportunity to prevent further fighting, and also an opportunity to educate and reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS.
6. The first plenary on demobilization theory and practice featured USIP Scholar Graham Day. A Canadian, former peacekeeper and professor at the Pearson Peacekeeping Institute, Day provided the underlying conditions for demobilization. He noted the centrality of security, the imposition of governance, i.e. law and order, then economic reconstruction and support of civil society. He also stressed the importance of sequencing of activities that would provide a better framework for different US and international actors to engage in any demobilization process. Reintegration and reconciliation, two components of the demobilization process, were noted as long-term processes, which required the collaboration of international donors and the support of local governments. Day proposed a cascade model for demobilization that includes: stopping the fighting/ending the war, imposing law and order, restarting the economy and nurturing civil society. He noted the Canadian government's “human security” focus, which involved a broad set of conditions which would support stability and economic inclusion.
7. Dr. Johanna Mendelson, Senior Advisor, BHR/AA, opened a session on USAID experiences and lessons learned, concluding that demobilization and reintegration programs are part of a broader development problem. She noted that such programs are necessary to ensure that security exists before engaging in efforts to support development in so many war-torn or transition countries. Evaluations of programming to date suggested that success is most likely to occur when local stakeholders are incorporated in the planning of any demobilization from the outset. Ms. Nicole Ball, Senior Fellow at the University of Maryland, and formerly with the Overseas Development Council, urged that external actors should realize that local ownership of any demobilization program would help improve its chances for a satisfactory outcome. Ball also discussed the importance of the security environment as part of demobilization; she warned against treating demobilization programs as purely technical and divorced from broader political processes. She emphasized that demobilization is a long-term process. Ms. Sylvia Fletcher, Senior Advisor, USAID/BHR/OTI, presented materials for this session about the evolution of demobilization research from initial World Bank studies in the early 1990s to more recent works. She noted that the workshop had provided a most up-to-date resource package for use by USAID missions and others wanting more information about the subject.
8. Dr. Manuel Carballo, International Center for Health and Migration in Geneva, discussed the relationship between HIV/AIDS and demobilization. HIV/AIDS and conflict have transformed Africa, noting that in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 70 percent of military deaths were HIV/AIDS related. Ex-combatants, many of whom are already HIV positive, run the risk of spreading the virus to communities that might be uninfected, through the reintegration process. He urged the inclusion of veterans in HIV counseling programs, prevention activities and social marketing. Dr. Lephophotho Mashike, of the University of Witwatersrand, South Africa, also spoke about his country’s failure to provide any HIV/AIDS counseling to veterans. He noted that while demobilized soldiers in the South African Defense Force received money, vocational training and other benefits, this health issue was neglected. General Emilio Mondo (ret) Uganda, chairman of the Veteran’s Assistance Board, discussed the successful efforts in Uganda to educate former fighters about HIV/AIDS. He noted that this had been an important component of his country’s reintegration programming.
9. Two sessions on the different types of demobilization processes featured talks on cases arising from a military restructuring (Nigeria, South Africa and Uganda) and cases arising from demobilization programs after peace accords (Mozambique, Angola, Ethiopia, and Sierra Leone). These sessions provided important contrasts in the types of issues that distinguished these two types of programs. All cases reinforced the concept of political will of the demobilizing parties as a condition for a positive outcome.
10. Five functional issue sessions also provided important cross-sectoral views of the demobilization and reintegration programming “Disarmament and Control of Light Weapons” noted that the ability to disarm soldiers or combatants was a function of their perception of security. The more secure an individual felt, the more likely they were to relinquish their arms; “Employment Creation, Pensions and Health, Veterans Needs” focused on the central issue in reintegration: the availability of employment outside the military. World Bank economists Florian Fichtl and Ingo Wiedehofer stressed the long-term nature of this aspect of reintegration, but stressed the importance of job market assessments and early planning in this area. Another session on “Dealing with Regular and Irregular Forces – Specific Needs and Diplomatic Issues” was led by John Prendergast (DOS) and Mark Bowden (UK Foreign Office). They described certain basic principles in working with armed insurgents and militaries – the importance of ending foreign support, identifying key leaders who could serve as interlocutors and the need to maintain international engagement with rebel forces to demonstrate that international actors took these groups seriously as players in internal conflicts. “Psychosocial Issues of Reintegration” featured Dr. Manuel Carballo, Mr. Randy Harris (USAID/Uganda), and Mr. Ajit Joshi (USAID/AFR) in a discussion of how this element of war trauma had been underplayed, and how it affected the capacity to demobilize and reintegrate into civilian life. Discussion included the dilemma of transforming from soldier to civilian, when the military or irregular force had served as an individual’s only support network or family (especially true with child soldiers). There was also confirmation of the immediate need to provide education and training to those who had served in the military. Finally, war affected women and children who had been victimized by military forces was another area that required greater comprehension and intervention.
11. A plenary session on the roles and capacities of USG agencies, the international community, including the UN, regional organizations, the World Bank, bilateral donors and NGOs, provided a window on how each group operated in a demobilization and reintegration setting. The areas of specialization and the unique functions of different organizations emerged during this discussion. Results from this session will form the basis of a framework for demobilization and reintegration efforts.
12. The closing session was a recapitulation of key assumptions, principles, and strategies to help guide the final reportbacks: The four major assumptions are: 1) the centrality of security to the DR process; 2) the need to simultaneously incorporate all forms of development assistance in DR planning: i.e., humanitarian, transition, and long-term; 3) the necessity of political will on the part of all involved as essential to DR; and 4) the need for broad collaboration and a mix of partners.
13. It was proposed that the following principles guide the DR process: strategy coordination; participation and ownership by institutions and communities; recognition of the impact of HIV/AIDS; recognition that there is a psychosocial dimension; special attention to gender as a cross-cutting theme; building in greater attention to special groups such as children, the disabled and women; and the application of lessons learned as an iterative process.
14. Taking all of this into account, several specific strategies emerged as essential to an effective DR process: 1) Sequence ALL funding assistance (short, medium, and long-term); 2) Engage in collaboration and show transparency of effort (i.e., joint planning and reporting among all the actors); 3) Engage in a rational and efficient use of organizational resources; 4) Ensure total and consistent involvement of national partners in all phases, 5) Establish effective communication to ensure clarity of mission among donors and national actors, 6) Ensure USG coordination between headquarters who are engaged in policymaking and the field where implementation takes place, 7) Gain a better understanding of how conflict affects a government’s ability to sustain political will for demobilization, 8) Use regional approaches to demobilization which are more effective than country-by-country strategies, 9) Establish a lead agency or coordinating body to ensure demobilization programs succeed in their ability to deliver and sequence assistance, and 10) Planning for contingencies and identify needs at every stage of DR to help support the capacity to promote both the short-term benefits and engage in the longer-term development needs that DDRR programs require.
15. Towards a Framework for Demobilization and Reintegration: Based on the results of this conference we are now prepared to develop the framework for USG involvement in demobilization and reintegration programs. We anticipate drafting such a document in Washington to guide future USG programming in this complex process. Under preparation by the NIO/Global Affairs is an estimate on future demobilization needs to provide further guidance in this area, and to help support an interagency process that brings the skills and capacities of all USG agency and its partners in the international arena to bear on this issue.