Have we Learned?New Report on SSR

Any lessons learned around the OECD-DAC Handbook on SSR must, by default, raise several issues: Are the elements of SSR relate to what is really needed in Africa, mainly countries emerging from conflict? Are there major divergences between African countries, experts and policy makers in the way they perceive it and organize around the issue?

Confronting the OECD-DAC Handbook on SSR

External players and their institutions have played a pivotal role in the reconceptualization of the security-development relationship and the promotion of the Security Sector Reform/SSR /agenda in Africa, partly as a consequence of their involvement in peace processes, but also as a direct result of the changing regional relationships affecting their own security concerns. At times they have emerged as key partners in most of the SSR processes, both at strategic and programmatic levels. Meanwhile, European influence, particularly but not exclusively on SSR, remains significant. The most critical role on SSR was, however, played by multilateral actors like the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development-Development Assistance Committee (OECD-DAC).Most importantly, the OECD-DAC supported efforts to develop a common definition and a common approach to donor activities in this domain.

This is not,by any means, to understate the fact that the United Kingdom (often referred to as Her Majesty’s Government-HMG) and its development arm, the Department for Foreign and International Development/DFID/ has spearheaded the majority of SSR-related activities in the continent. While it may still be too soon to judge, external donors appear to have performed unevenly on issues of SSR, ranging from those useful and relatively committed actors (such as the UK and Canada) to others who are indifferent to and less clear about SSR (such as the U.S and France, and probably China) whose focus tends to be narrow and intervene in African conflict irrespective of African interests and/or arrogantly deploy their security forces.The current analyst wants to make one thing clear: SSR is not solely driven by Europe. There have been several attempts, though less documented, by Africans to promote and implement SSR. The notion that reforming security institutions is something alien to Africans and that it was solely put on the agenda by donors is misguided. As some say,quite famously, ‘there has been SSR before SSR’ in Africa. This may not, however, change the fact that more than any other continent Europe remains the most important player in conceptualizing, supporting and promoting SSR in Africa.

Nonetheless, even if they might have been genuinely pursued donor-supported SSR programmes have always experienced several shortcomings, both at the policy and programmatic/ technical levels. No wonder, the role of external actors in Africa has come under critical assault in recent years. Donor supported SSR in Africa poses several challenges. Among which the most prominent include adopting the rhetoric on western norms resulting in 'cosmetic changes', rather than on concrete initiatives to concurrently strengthen both governance and operational effectiveness. Evidently, the problems associated with external actors, donors and international assistance on SSR interalia refer to the following: failure to link conflict resolution with reform; conflicting donor policies in the security domain; pursuing partisan political agendas; lack of co-ordination; imposing solutions and undermining local ownership, and promoting counter-terrorist measures that prevent or weaken democratic reform.

Any lessons learned around the OECD-DAC Handbook on SSR raises several issues: Are the elements of SSR relate to what is really needed in Africa, mainly countries emerging from conflict? Are there major divergences between African countries in the way they organize around the issue? What policy and practice changes could be proposed to improve the quality of OECD-DAC SSR Handbook interms of continental policy making and implementation of SSR in Africa? What could regional and international stakeholders, civil society organizations and citizens do to contribute effectively to this process? All these interrelated issues are important for future research; some of them are probably covered in the book in question. However, the current analyst believes that, much would no doubt be learned by extending the discussion into some aspects of the OECD-DAC Handbook on SSR, especially its African (SSR) component rarely studied by African analysts and policy makers. Needless to say a major focus of the currentanalyst.com is the role of external factors in Africa.While presenting an otherwise somber assessment of the OECD-DAC- through the responses to the publication and dissemination of the OECD-DAC hand book on SSR in early 2007- the current analyst invites African specialists to move the discussion forward.

This brief memo is exactly that; it attempts to frame the debate, encourages a robust discussion on issues surrounding the document underscoring the need for the rise of an African Handbook on SSR.Thus, the presentation of the study to a wider audience is based on the premise that a review of the OECD approach, with a sharp focus on SSR in Africa and the influence it has had on the approaches chosen so far by African specialists and Network of experts can to some extent contribute to our current and future understandings of peace building in Africa. With the increased focus on the security sector in Africa, the need for interrogating the OECD-DAC approach to SSR has never been more evident.

Click to download fileSSR44391867.pdf