Challenges and prospects for interoperability in UN peace operations: A look at Haiti

Published date01 June 2018
Date01 June 2018
DOI10.1177/0020702018786990
Subject MatterScholarly Essay
SG-IJXJ180043 241..256
Scholarly Essay
International Journal
2018, Vol. 73(2) 241–256
Challenges and
! Crown Copyright 2018
Reprints and permissions:
prospects for
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0020702018786990
interoperability in
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijx
UN peace operations:
A look at Haiti
Gae¨lle Rivard Piche´
Defence Research and Development Canada
Abstract
Interoperability is central to UN peace operations. These operations are civilian-led
enterprises that pursue complex objectives, which often can only be achieved through
the close collaboration of civilian, police, and military actors. As a result, coordination
and interoperability between civilian and uniformed personnel in peace operations is
not only desirable but often necessary to the success of these missions. Yet, interoper-
ability is not a given. Peace operations face important challenges that can undermine the
ability of their different components to work effectively together towards common
objectives. Based on observations made during field research in Haiti and time spent
at the UN headquarters in New York City, this essay discusses the challenges faced by
peace operations in regard to interoperability, factors that facilitate interoperability, and
implications for Canada’s announced return to peacekeeping.
Keywords
Interoperability, peace operations, United Nations, Haiti, Canada
In August 2016, the Government of Canada announced it was ready to contribute
up to 600 troops from the Canadian Armed Forces to United Nations (UN) peace
operations, in addition to C$450 million to support the new Peace and Stabilization
Operations Program.1 This announcement is certainly welcomed considering the
challenges currently faced by the international community in terms of conf‌lict
1.
Global Affairs Canada, ‘‘Canada to support peace operations,’’ 26 August 2016, http://news.gc.ca/
web/article-en.do?nid¼1117209
(accessed 7 June 2018).
Corresponding author:
Gae¨lle Rivard Piche´, Defence Research and Development Canada, National Defence Headquarters, 101
Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0K2, Canada.
Email: gaelle.rivardpiche@forces.gc.ca

242
International Journal 73(2)
management and peace support, especially in Africa and the Middle East. Yet, it is
important to note that peace operations have evolved considerably over the last
two decades. They are now often deployed in contexts where there is little or no
peace to keep, and they face challenges well beyond monitoring ceasef‌ires and
separating warring parties.
Peacekeeping is now often secondary to the re-establishment and construction of
the peace. Peace operations’ mandates are more robust and complex, highlighting the
political nature of their objectives. Furthermore, given the complexity of peace and
state building processes, peace operations last longer and their mandates change as the
situation on the ground evolves. As a matter of fact, nine of the 20 peace operations
authorized by the UN Security Council since 1999 are still deployed. As of October
2017, 107,690 personnel serve in 15 peace operations and eight special political mis-
sions around the world.2 Personnel include uniformed staf‌f (police and military), as
well as international and local civilians with dif‌ferent backgrounds, various skills, and
diverse responsibilities. According to the UN and other international agencies, the
ef‌fectiveness of peace operations relies in great part on the ability of these actors to
work ef‌fectively together in order to implement the mission’s mandate.
As a result, interoperability is now central to peace operations, and it presents its
own set of challenges. Contrary to military interventions, current UN peace oper-
ations are civilian-led enterprises that pursue complex objectives, including the stabil-
ization of the security environment, the protection of civilians, electoral assistance, the
restoration and the extension of state authority, security sector reform (SSR), dis-
armament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR), humanitarian relief and assist-
ance, mine action, promotion and monitoring of human rights, defence and
promotion of gender issues, community violence reduction (CVR), and so on.
Often, these objectives can only be achieved through close coordination and collab-
oration between civilian, police, and military actors. As a result, interoperability
between civilian and uniformed personnel in peace operations is not only desirable;
it is necessary to the success of these missions. Yet, interoperability is not a given.
Peace operations face important challenges that can undermine the ability of its dif-
ferent components to work ef‌fectively together towards common objectives.
This article contributes to the discussion on interoperability in peace operations
by looking at international intervention in Haiti. My analysis is based on interviews
I conducted with international police, military, and civilian UN personnel deployed
to the country through dif‌ferent research projects between 2009 and 2015, on
observations I gathered during f‌ieldwork on security sector reform and violence
in Port-au-Prince in 2014, and on my personal experience as an intern with the
Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) in New York in the fall of 2013.
In my analysis, I also draw from my experience as a consultant with the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), through which I train Canadian police of‌f‌icers
about to be deployed abroad, including to Haiti. While the data presented here do
2.
United Nations (UN), Department of Peacekeeping Operations, ‘‘Global peacekeeping data (as of
31 May 2018),’’ https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/data-0 (accessed 7 June 2018).

Rivard Piche´
243
not of‌fer an exhaustive account of the reality of interoperability—or lack there-
of—in peace operations, and show limited generalization potential, they provide
interesting insights anchored in personal experiences and individual perceptions
that help to better illustrate the interoperability challenges faced by the various
actors that make up UN peace operations.
After introducing the concept of interoperability, I discuss how it can contribute
to the success of contemporary peace operations. Second, I turn to the causes of
tension between civilian, police, and military players in the design and the imple-
mentation of these missions and their mandate. Third, I formulate some recom-
mendations to improve interoperability between the dif‌ferent actors contributing to
peace operations. I conclude by highlighting some implications for the Canadian
government and its announced investments toward UN peace operations.
Interoperability in peace operations
In military settings, interoperability is usually def‌ined as ‘‘the ability of systems, units,
or forces to provide services to and accept services from other systems, units, or forces,
and to use the services so exchanged to enable them to operate ef‌fectively together.’’3
In the context of interventions that involve civilian personnel, the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) conceives interoperability as ‘‘the ability to act together
coherently, ef‌fectively and ef‌f‌iciently to achieve common objectives.’’4 The UN does
not refer directly to the concept of interoperability, preferring terminology such as
‘‘coordination’’ and ‘‘integration.’’ According to its capstone doctrine, ‘‘an integrated
mission is one in which there is a shared vision among all United Nations actors as to
the strategic objectives of the United Nations presence at the country-level. This strat-
egy should ref‌lect a shared understanding of the operating environment and agreement on
how to maximize the ef‌fectiveness, ef‌f‌iciency and impact of the United Nations overall
response.’’5 Integration relies on coordination, cooperation, and communication.6
Based on these def‌initions, integration occurs at the strategic level, while coordination
and cooperation concern the operational and tactical levels. Cooperation means that
actors who have complementary and/or overlapping objectives will actively collabor-
ate, while coordination refers to actors sharing information and acting in ways that
avoid conf‌lict, duplication, and/or overlap.7
3.
Myron Hura, Gary McLeod, Eric V. Larson, James Schneider, Dan Gonzales, Daniel M. Norton,
Jody Jacobs, Kevin M. O’Connell, William Little, Richard Mesic, and Lewis Jamison,
Interoperability: A Continuing Challenge in Coalition Air Operations (California: RAND
Corporation, 2000), 7–8.
4.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), ‘‘Interoperability: Connecting NATO forces,’’ 6 June
2017, http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_84112.htm (accessed 6 Jul 2018).
5.
Emphasis by the author. United Nations (UN), Department of Peacekeeping Operations and
Department of Field Support, ‘‘United Nations Peacekeeping Operations Principles and
Guidelines,’’ United Nations, New York, 18 January 2008, 53–54.
6.
Ibid., 54.
7.
Cedric de Coning and Kartsen Friis, ‘‘Coherence and coordination: The limits of the comprehensive
approach,’’ Journal of International Peacekeeping 15, no. 1–2 (2011): 256.

244
International Journal 73(2)
Interoperability remains relevant and closely related to discussions of integra-
tion, cooperation, and coordination. In this essay, interoperability in peace oper-
ations implies that relevant stakeholders act together coherently, ef‌fectively, and
ef‌f‌iciently in order to implement the mission’s mandate and fulf‌ill its objectives at
the strategic, operational, and tactical levels. Interoperability is conceived as a
factor...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT