Thank you very much, John, and a particular thank you to the IISS for its very efficient management of this conference and for the fact that this conference is occurring, which I think greatly strengthens our ability to talk on security issues within the region and beyond the region. Minister Teo, if I could also thank you very much for the wonderful hospitality that Singapore shows to us each year. That makes this conference a very special occasion and we are very grateful to the government of Singapore for that.
The security needs of the 21st century are qualitatively different from those of a generation ago. Traditional inter-state conflict has increasingly taken second place to conflict within states. Unlike the Cold War, where the conflicting parties were often proxies for ideological battles between the great powers, today – by and large – outsiders cannot be blamed for the violence.
While the Asia Pacific region may be less affected by such conflicts than other parts of the world, one test of regional institutions is the ability to respond to such situations. Internal conflicts occurring where state institutions and national cohesion are weak require new international responses. Collectively, we need to find solutions to instability which arises out of the inadequacy of local social and political institutions.
The increasing prevalence of situations of this nature is reflected in the growing demand for United Nations peacekeeping operations. Deployments reached an historic high at the end of October 2000, with nearly 81,000 military and police personnel and some 15,000 civilians serving in 18 peacekeeping operations around the world. There will be a real challenge in finding countries prepared to contribute to meeting this demand, but I believe there are two key reasons why we must collectively endeavour to meet these needs.
The first is the acceptance by the United Nations of the doctrine of the responsibility to protect. That acknowledges our shared responsibility to act in response to humanitarian crises which threaten human survival and well-being. The world today is hopefully less willing to stand back and do nothing in the face of tragedies like Rwanda and Bosnia, where thousands were allowed to be murdered in cold blood.
The second reason is our shared self‑interest in dealing with threats to local security and stability which have consequences for our own and wider regional well-being. Failed states obviously become potential havens for international crime and for terrorism. The Taliban’s hosting of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, leading to 9/11, was a dramatic example of this.
In the first instance, a military intervention may be necessary to control and stabilise a situation which poses a threat. However, for the resolution of conflict to be sustainable we need more wide‑ranging interventions to deal with the causes of state failure: initiatives to build state capacity; initiatives to build social services; in other words, basic nation building.
Stability and development are mutually dependent. Stability requires addressing poverty, underdevelopment, economic crisis, weak or corrupt central government, and ethnic, tribal and religious conflict. The challenge may, for example, be about how tribal or district loyalties can become loyalties to a nation, or how to inculcate conventions that groups do not take by force what they are unable to achieve through the ballot box.
In my comments today, I would like to draw on New Zealand’s experience and involvement in recent peacekeeping missions to assess how these challenges might be met, touching on Bougainville, the Solomon Islands, Timor Leste and Afghanistan. The focus of much of what New Zealand does, as a relatively small country, has been in the South Pacific, where we have our closest family, cultural and political links. Problems in South Pacific include communal tensions, political instability, weak governance, fragile economies, rapid population growth that places pressure on limited resources, land tenure problems and international crime.
In Bougainville, New Zealand and Australia were invited by both the rebels and the government of Papua New Guinea to intervene to help end 10 years of civil war that had taken as many as 10,000 lives. We were fortunately able to create an environment for the conflicting parties to talk with each other and for confidence‑building between them, which led to a peace agreement. The peacekeeping force agreed upon, unusually, was unarmed and was broadened to include other members of the Pacific community, two factors which I believe contributed to a successful outcome. Nine years later, the peace continues to hold, though many economic and social problems remain to be resolved.
In the Solomon Islands, the government sought assistance from Australia and New Zealand when lawlessness and ethnic conflict threatened to engulf the state. Both of our countries were reluctant and in fact delayed in taking up that invitation to become involved, but after a period of time we realised that options less than a comprehensive response, supported by an armed military and police intervention, simply would not succeed; things would continue to go from bad to worse.
The decision to intervene was agreed multilaterally at a meeting of all countries of the Pacific Islands Forum, many of whose members subsequently participated in the intervention. The authorisation for the intervention came from both the Solomon Islands government and – importantly – unanimously from the Solomon Islands parliament, reflecting different factions involved in that parliament. The intervention was multifaceted, involving comprehensive development and institution‑building tasks, as well as conventional security and law and order.
In Timor Leste, New Zealand deployed Defence Force personnel with Australia in September 1999 in response to the violence and chaos created by the militias. The deployment was first part of a regional mission, INTERFET, before being subsumed into UNTAET when the United Nations took over the task of providing security and capacity‑building for the transition to independence.
We stationed a battalion in Timor Leste for three years. We provided assistance for the development of the new Timor Leste Defence Force. We contributed police, customs and corrections officers to assist with capacity‑building in those sectors. By independence in 2002, along with a large number of other contributors from this region and the international community, as well as the United Nations, we felt that we had done a good job.
In both the Solomon Islands and Timor Leste, the initial and successful efforts to establish stability and economic and social progress have not yet resulted in permanent or sustainable change. A free and fair election was held in the Solomon Islands last year, but sadly the faction that did not initially succeed in choosing the Prime Minister and Cabinet instigated a riot and widespread arson that saw much of the commercial area of the capital city destroyed.
Two MPs who were charged with and imprisoned for causing the riot were subsequently appointed to ministerial posts, one as Minister of Police. An individual facing charges of criminality in Australia has been nominated as Attorney General.
In these situations, the issue of accountability arises and whether intervening countries have any say. The Solomon Islands government, for good reasons and bad, have pushed back against their decision‑making authority or sovereignty being constrained by the Regional Assistance Mission. The Solomon Islands public, however, have remained hugely supportive of the regional mission.
The mission and the Solomon Islands government now face the challenge of trying to find a middle ground to enable ongoing cooperation. Timor-Leste, in April of last year, with divisions and conflict between regions, within and between the security forces, and between political parties saw a renewed outbreak of violence forcing literally tens of thousands to flee to the internally displaced persons camps. The beleaguered government invited forces from Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Portugal to intervene to restore law and order and stability, which has happened.
In parallel, the United Nations has responded to the breakdown of authority in Timor-Leste with a new mission UNMIT to address policing, justice, good governance, institutional capacity building and economic development issues. Presidential elections have just been held successfully and the campaigns for the parliamentary elections at the end of this month are currently underway.
The situation at present is stable but fragile. International police and defence support, as well as United Nations capacity building remains essential to prevent the renewal of violence and to preserve security.
In Afghanistan, the international intervention after 9/11 is well known to everyone here. After 25 years of conflict, integrating diverse elements back into a nation state and creating a new framework to allow central government to be effective and to extend its authority and services to the provinces remains a huge challenge. The country needs an effective national army and police force to achieve security. It needs a functioning economy and infrastructure to improve living conditions and the delivery of services such as health and education.
Since 2003, New Zealand has operated a provincial reconstruction team in Bamian in central Afghanistan. It was first under Operation Enduring Freedom and now under the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force.
The PRT has helped to provide local security. It has been effective in helping to train a local police force. Development assistance in areas like schools, roads, bridges and medical care has improved the quality of life generally and we believe that the PRT has been a very effective model.
We have recently welcomed a team from Singapore with the Singapore armed forces personnel providing construction and medical care. We built a strong partnership with the local government and police, but still face the challenge that we face in more operations of this nature which is high expectations and outsiders being looked to for resolving problems which are the role of the local or provincial government.
There is a need for a holistic approach. In each of these missions, peacekeeping and security forces are essential. They help to stabilise a volatile situation as the essential first step.
Insecurity and violence are the manifestation of deep-seated weaknesses, in particular ethnic tension, weak or corrupt central authorities and lack of economic opportunity, which need to be addressed at the same time. The regional assistance mission on the Solomon Islands is an example of how to integrate intervention. While restoring law and order was the first priority, work began immediately on the mission’s other two pillars: the machinery of government and economic development. Each of the three pillars is essential to improve the lives of Solomon Islanders. Economic opportunity, good governance and security all go hand in hand.
Secondly, the lesson is for a balanced approach. We must, as Kofi Annan put it, strike the right balance between hard and soft responses. Military forces will often be required to end instability and lawlessness, especially where insurgents are a threat. In recognition of that, New Zealand deployed three rotations of its special forces in Afghanistan.
However, the use of force can also undermine the consent environment, especially when that use of force is harmful to local people. We talk about ‘collateral damage’ in dealing with insurgents, but that means that the loss of lives of innocent people. A heavy-handed approach to the local population can quickly turn that population against the intervention forces. Therefore, skill and sensitivity on the part of military forces is necessary to avoid that outcome.
Use of force has to be proportionate and highly discriminating. It needs to be balanced with the ability to get alongside local people. Earning the respect and trust of the local community is critically important to a successful outcome.
Thirdly, there is a need for an inclusive approach. The relationship between the intervening partners and the host needs to be a partnership in pursuit of shared goals. Being invited by the host government and maintaining the consent environment are important elements in the success of the mission. That is obviously not always straightforward.
Likewise, the local government needs to maintain ownership of its country’s problems and the solutions to them, otherwise the intervening force comes to be held responsible and to blame for what does happen or does not happen.
Fourthly, the importance of the regional and the international context. Regional participation or cooperation is critically important. Interventions are much more likely to succeed when neighbouring states lend their support. The successful truce and peace missions that brought Bougainville out of conflict comprised neighbouring Pacific island states that understood the environment and the people. The same dynamic is currently operating in the Regional Assistance Mission in the Solomon Islands.
A stronger regional commitment in Timor-Leste, in parallel with the United Nations and bilateral commitments is likewise essential to ensure that Timor-Leste gets back on track to stability. Collective interventions also build legitimacy, especially with the host government and reduce the risk of the intervention being seen simply as a form of neo-colonialism.
Finally, we regard authorisation by the United Nations Security Council as vital for regional peace operations. That may be by the establishment of a United Nations mandated peacekeeping operation or, as is the case in Timor-Leste, by the approval of a force invited by the government in question.
Therefore, in conclusion, defence and other security forces today regularly find themselves at the front end of rescue efforts for failed states. While their primary mission is to stabilise the situation and provide a security platform, they have to operate in what, by definition, is a fraught and contested political arena. This places a premium on a wide range of non-military as well as military skills.
It also places a premium on multiple layers of coordination between defence forces from different countries; between defence forces and other agencies and NGOs; between defence forces and the local government; and between defence forces and the international community, whether represented by the United Nations and its agencies or in some other way.
In the Asia-Pacific region, a variety of mechanisms have been used in situations such as those described above. The European Union ASEAN Aceh Monitoring Mission, the Malaysian-led International Monitoring Team in the Southern Philippines, and the much earlier United Nations operation in Cambodia point to a variety of ways in which the regional and the wider international community can respond to conflicts and assist with post-conflict peace building.
In March next year, New Zealand, alongside Singapore, is co-hosting the second ASEAN regional forum peacekeeping experts meeting. Peacekeeping, as I have endeavoured to point out, is very much a collective endeavour. This experts’ meeting, following one held in Malaysia in March of this year will give us the opportunity to pool our experiences and draw from them lessons for the future.
