A review of: „Conflict and Peace in Western Sahara: The Role of the UN’s Peacekeeping Mission (MINURSO) edited by János Besenyő, R. Joseph Huddleston, and Yahia H. Zoubir

Journal of Central and Eastern European African Studies, 2(4), 205–210. (2023)

After the end of the Spaniard authority over Western Sahara in 1975, Morocco occupied a meaningful part of the territory. In contrary to the exploitation of the natural resources and the support of the influx of new settlers to the territory by Rabat, and the strengthening of its military presence, the Saharawi population is still insisting on to exercise its right for self-determination. The parties to the conflict have developed their own diverse and usually incompatible interpretations of the mission since the beginning. While Morocco favoured a narrower operation and caused numerous obstacles that fundamentally hindered operative efficiency, POLISARIO insisted on to deploy a mission with the inclusion of issues like the monitoring of human rights. By now, there is no political agreement between Rabat and the POLISARIO, nor in the international arena. There is no real interest in the UNSC to settle the dispute. Despite direct talks facilitated by the Secretary-General and the Special Envoy, and the numerous peace plans given to the parties: limited capacities and political will to solve the conflict, the lack of human, military, financial resources resulted in a low-intensity conflict in Western Sahara that is still not just continue to exist, but escalate. What’s next after that? A renewed mandate or a new operation? By the way, does MINURSO still have its raison d’etre? The book aims to answer such questions by concerning different topics from different perspectives.

Linking theory to practice – The potency of the “new wars” thesis in better understanding contemporary armed conflicts, supporting peace operations and reshaping post-conflict resolution. A Liberian case study

Journal of Central and Eastern European African Studies, 2(2), 69-103. (2022)

Before the 1990s, the practice of post-conflict management mainly focused on military and law-enforcement priorities. Since then, a development-oriented approach has evolved by making a greater sense of the better addressing of the root causes and characteristics of conflicts, as well as the needs and motivations of actors and individuals. In the same vein, critical approaches to the traditionally „minimalist” approach suggested a relatively new, community-based practice that may help to better understand the complex political, psychological and economic situation in local terms to enhance the efficiency of reintegration of former combatants and make them socially and politically represented after conflicts end.At the same time, according to Mary Kaldor’s theory, we have witnessed meaningful qualitative changes regarding the nature of armed conflicts which pose vital challenges to the Westphalian international system as they reshape the concept of sovereignty and question the state monopoly on violence. Proponents of the “new war” thesis argue that such qualitative changes in wars also necessitate a fundamental shift from the traditional peacebuilding approaches. In Kaldor’s view, as a consequence of the rapid globalisation during the 1990s and the never-ending erosion of state sovereignty a fundamentally new theoretical framework is needed in the course of peace operations which is entirely different from the former so-called „liberal peace”. Thus, the new characteristics of wars pointed out by Kaldor may have a great significance in how peacebuilding and DDR programmes should be planned and implemented in post-conflict settlements.In this analysis the question is how the failure of traditional disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) programmes and the prospective new generation of them reflect to „new wars” theories, particularly to Kaldor’s thesis, so what connections they may have, if any. The author makes this search through a Liberian case study. The focal points of the analysis include: actors (1); motivations and goals (2); brutality and the victimisation of the civilians (3); and economic and financial characteristics (4).