Guns, Camps and Cash: Disarmament, Demobilization and Reinsertion of Former Combatants in Transitions from War to Peace
| DOI | 10.1177/0022343304044479 |
| Date | 01 July 2004 |
| Published date | 01 July 2004 |
| Author | Alpaslan O÷zerdem,Mark Knight |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
499
Introduction
The process of disarmament, demobiliza-
tion, reinsertion and reintegration (DDRR)
of former combatants is part of the overall
long-term peacebuilding process, a task in
which success depends on the holistic and
integrated implementation of various
postwar recovery programmes. The United
Nations Department of Peacekeeping Oper-
ations (DPKO) (1999) defines disarmament
as the collection, control and disposal of
small arms and light weapons and the
development of responsible arms manage-
ment programmes in a post-conflict context.
Meanwhile, demobilization is defined as a
© 2004 Journal of Peace Research,
vol. 41, no. 4, 2004, pp. 499–516
Sage Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA
and New Delhi) www.sagepublications.com
DOI 10.1177/0022343304044479 ISSN 0022-3433
Guns, Camps and Cash: Disarmament,
Demobilization and Reinsertion of Former
Combatants in Transitions from War to Peace*
MARK KNIGHT
Consultant
ALPASLAN ÖZERDEM
Post-war Reconstruction and Development Unit, Department of Politics,
University of York
The process of disarmament, demobilization, reinsertion and reintegration (DDRR) of former combat-
ants plays a critical role in transitions from war to peace. The success or failure of this endeavour directly
affects the long-term peacebuilding prospects for any post-conflict society. The exploration of the closely
interwoven relationship between peacebuilding and the DDRR process also provides a theoretical frame-
work for this article, which aims to present an assessment of various disarmament, demobilization and
reinsertion (DDR) programmes planned or implemented in a number of countries over the last two
decades. The assessment is conducted by focusing on three specific DDR issues: disarmament as a social
contract; demobilization without cantonment; and the relevance of financial reinsertion assistance. The
majority of these initiatives adopted a ‘guns–camps–cash’ approach that seems to provide only a limited
perspective for dealing with a wide range of complex issues related to the DDR process. Therefore, the
article questions whether there is a need for a more comprehensive consideration of disarmament by
acknowledging and responding to its social, economic and political implications. In conjunction with
the above-mentioned consideration, disarmament in terms of a social contract is proposed as an alterna-
tive to the current military-centred approach. Experience also indicates a tendency towards the inclusion
of cantonment in the demobilization phase, regardless of whether it actually can have some negative
impacts on the DDRR process in general. Subsequently, the article questions such implications and
possible approaches to demobilization without cantonment. Finally, the article focuses on the effective-
ness of cash payments during reinsertion as an easier alternative to the provision of other material assist-
ance, since this tends to be the most controversial aspect of the reinsertion phase.
* Author for correspondence: Alpaslan Özerdem:
ao102@york.ac.uk.
06 044479 (ds) 25/5/04 2:33 pm Page 499
planned process by which the armed force of
the government and/or opposition or fac-
tional forces either downsize or completely
disband. Having been demobilized and
transported to their community of choice,
the former combatants and their families
must establish themselves in a civilian
environment, and reinsertion assistance,
which is intended to ameliorate the process,
often includes post-discharge orientation,
food assistance, health and education
support and a cash allowance. Finally, reinte-
gration is the process whereby former com-
batants and their families are integrated into
the social, economic and political life of
(civilian) communities.
Two types of DDRR programmes can be
identified as demilitarization and those
taking place in war-to-peace transition
(Colletta, Kostner & Wiederhofer, 1996a).
The former involves a reduction in the
number of military personnel following a
decisive victory, attempting to reduce
military expenditure in order to take advan-
tage of the peace dividend.1Large-scale
downsizing as part of peacetime demobiliza-
tion initiatives can also be considered under
this heading. However, in the second
scenario, no clear victor emerges and DDRR
is undertaken as part of a peace settlement.2
Within this scenario, the outcome of any
DDRR programme depends predominantly
upon the political context in which it is
carried out, and the political will among the
belligerent parties will remain the chief
criterion for determining success. It should
also be noted that demobilization occurs
spontaneously in some post-conflict
contexts, as was the case in Bosnia and
Herzegovina, for example. The scope of this
article excludes such cases, however, as our
discussions will be based on planned DDRR
experiences in peace-to-war transitions.
Experience also indicates that the ways in
which disarmament, demobilization and
reinsertion (DDR) programmes are planned
and implemented have significant impli-
cations for the reintegration of former com-
batants and peacebuilding processes (Berdal,
1996; Colletta, Kostner & Wiederhofer,
1996a; DPKO, 1999; UN Security Council,
2000; Kingma, 2002; World Bank, 2002).
Therefore, it is important to explore various
DDR programmes in order to gain from
those experiences a clear understanding of
what has worked and what has not. Subse-
quently, the aim of this article is to conduct
an assessment of DDR programmes planned
or implemented throughout the 1980s and
1990s in a number of African, Asian, Central
American and European countries, in order
to explore their principal characteristics.3
First, the majority of these DDR initiatives
adopted the ‘one-gun-per-person-demobiliz-
ation’ approach, which seems to provide only
a limited perspective for dealing with a wide
range of complex issues related to disarma-
ment. Hence, the article questions whether
there is a need for a more comprehensive
consideration of disarmament by acknow-
ledging and responding to its social,
economic and political implications. Dis-
armament as a social contract is proposed as
an alternative to the current military-centred
journal of PEACE RESEARCH volume 41 / number 4 / july 2004
500
1The context of demilitarization implies that the govern-
ment retains administrative control over the state’s terri-
tories and there exists no viable armed opposition.
2The context of this scenario differs from demilitarization
in that armed opposition to the government retains terri-
torial control and possesses the ability to engage in war-
fighting, if the peace agreement breaks down owing to
non-compliance.
3The review will mainly draw upon the experiences of the
United Nations in peacekeeping operations and the World
Bank. The UN peacekeeping operations are often
mandated to undertake, or oversee, disarmament of bel-
ligerent factions. Hence, the UN perspective is focused
upon the initial phases of DDR programmes, namely dis-
armament. The World Bank’s perspective is coloured by the
organization’s involvement in the latter phases of DDR
programmes, demobilization and reintegration. However,
the DDR experiences of a number of other international
organizations such as the International Organisation for
Migration (IOM), the United Nations Development Pro-
gramme (UNDP) and the International Labour Office
(ILO) will also inform discussions.
06 044479 (ds) 25/5/04 2:33 pm Page 500
To continue reading
Request your trial