APPENDIX A

Civilian Police in

International Peace Operations:

Local Law Enforcement Perspectives

I want to acknowledge all of you who are here today, who have taken the time and made the investment to be a part of this conference. The use of civilian police in international peace operations is certainly not a new phenomenon. But their role is clearly changing and taking on added significance in this, the post-Cold War era.

Policing the new world disorder is crucial from both a national, military perspective, the perspective that many of you bring here today, as well as from a local law enforcement perspective, a view I hope to share with you.

I speak to you today as a police officer, who has spent nearly 38 years working in Chicago and watching my profession, and the world around it, change dramatically. I am also a police officer who has tremendous respect for our military organizations and for the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces. The military has always been a fertile ground for recruiting police officers, and we continue to benefit from the unique training and experiences that military personnel bring to the job of police officer.

From the perspective of public safety alone, I am struck by the enormous challenges inherent in today’s international peace operations. These missions are carried out in the harshest and most unstable of environments. The public’s expectations of what these operations can accomplish are extraordinarily high––and the time frames within which they are expected to succeed are unrealistically short. All the while, the media spotlight on the participants can be constant and glaring.

Yet, despite all the attention these missions get, the public’s understanding and appreciation of them remain limited. Here at home, so much of the focus rests on the short-term military and political components of these operations that the American public tends to lose sight of the truly profound, long-range issues that are at stake— ideals such as human rights, freedom, domestic tranquillity, and a lasting system of justice rooted in the rule of law.

Civilian police working in concert with military peacekeepers play an important and growing role in achieving these long-term ideals. Their role in contemporary peace operations is something that should be highlighted, studied, reported on, and ultimately improved. This conference is an important step in furthering this discussion, and I am very pleased to be a part of the dialogue.

In reading over the background materials for this conference, I was struck by something I read in chapter one of the draft book, a very simple and straightforward equation attributed to Major General Mark Hamilton on the U.S. Joint Staff. The equation states, “peace equals order plus justice.”

For me, those five words deftly describe the two essential but sometimes conflicting goals of a successful international peace operation or, for that matter, a successful domestic policing strategy: securing order in the short-term, while working toward the long-range goal of justice. Increasingly, the success of international peace operations and local policing strategies has come to be defined as achieving both of these conditions, not simply the first step of restoring order.

From a public safety perspective, the “peace equals order plus justice” equation suggests a couple of important considerations. First, there are indeed distinctions between order-restoration on the one hand, and order-maintenance, or justice, on the other. In general, the order-restoration function fits more closely with the military tradition of securing a quick victory—no holds barred—in a highly charged and combative situation. The order-maintenance function, on the other hand, is more akin to the role that police departments in the United States typically perform: promoting and enforcing the rule of law within a community structure that the police are a part of.

These descriptions may be overly simplistic, and there will always be gray areas between the two functions, but there is also a very real line separating them, a line that is important for those planning peace operations and those carrying them out, to recognize and respect. At some point, order-restoration must be phased out, and order-maintenance must become the predominant activity, if the ultimate goal of peace is to be achieved.

The order of terms in the “peace equals order plus justice” equation also has significance. It is no coincidence that the equation places “order” before “justice.” Long-term change cannot occur unless and until basic order has been restored and some semblance of stability established. This is as true in international peace operations, as it is in domestic law enforcement situations.

Police in the United States recognize that we cannot build up and restore a crime-ridden neighborhood until we have reclaimed that community from the dominant criminal element. Civilian police officials involved in international peace operations must also recognize that their desire for long-term change must “follow” the restoration of order and must not compromise this short-term imperative.

By the same token, order-restoration efforts must support and complement the long-range goal of building lasting public safety and justice. Whether in international peacekeeping or local policing, it is never too early to start planning for long-range change.

Few people today would dispute the fact that civilian police are an integral part of modern-day international peace operations and that their role will likely grow in importance in the years ahead. So the question then becomes, what can planners and managers of these international operations learn from the domestic police experience that will assist them in integrating and better managing the civilian police function? A discussion of some of the basic tenets or principles of modern-day policing that will likely impact the changing role of civilian police in international peace operations may answer that question.

In many ways, it is difficult to be specific about how these principles translate into the design and operation of any one peace mission. The source of the conflict, the degree of instability, and the strength of the existing justice infrastructure—these and other factors will necessarily impact the particular role of the civilian police and their relationship with military peacekeepers.

Nevertheless, there are some overarching issues or considerations that will be present in all instances. I want to explore three of them today: the police mandate, the approach or style in carrying out that mandate, and the police role in the larger justice system. A better appreciation and understanding of these three considerations will help the planners and managers of international peace operations better integrate and manage civilian police activities under their control.

The police mandate is important to consider because, as I alluded to earlier, it does differ from the traditional mandate of the military. It is the difference between immediate victory, or “order,” usually secured by vanquishing the enemy, and long-term change, or “justice,” within a larger context.

The police mandate—to protect the lives, property, and the rights of all people, including, at times, those people accused of committing a crime—is markedly different from the military mandate. And these differences must be considered in planning and implementing peace operations that include both traditions.

Another important consideration is the manner in which police agencies fulfill their mandate. This is particularly important now, because there has been such dramatic change in our implementation strategies and approaches in recent years. I believe it is important to recognize that community policing does represent a dramatic expansion of the police officer’s role in society. This expansion of the police role beyond narrow law enforcement represents a major change for policing. For international peace operations, the change has two important implications.

First, it means that civilian police officers involved in such operations will likely have at least an understanding of community policing, if not a full orientation to this new approach or style of policing. Second, and perhaps more important, the community policing perspective can help guide peace operations toward the long-term goal of creating an indigenous and independent police force, one that is responsive to the community it serves and enjoys the respect of that community.

One thing community policing does very effectively is force the police to consider, and respond to, the concerns of the community— both the emergency calls for service and the broader quality-of-life concerns that often create a climate of fear in the community. If the long-term success of international peacekeeping lies in winning the hearts and minds of the local populace, then community policing approaches should be studied, planned for, and implemented, where possible.

The third consideration involves the police role in the larger criminal justice system, an extremely difficult and complex issue. Stop to think about it. As if the challenge of developing an indigenous police capacity were not difficult enough, peace operations often face the even more daunting challenge of helping to build an indigenous prosecutorial, judicial, and penal capacity as well. In many instances, these latter agencies and institutions may be even more closely aligned with one of the existing political factions and, therefore, even more resistant to reform.

But the fact remains that the police are just one part of a larger system of justice, and the police cannot be effective without the cooperation and support of these other components. Even in developed countries such as ours, where justice agencies and processes are well established, coordination between the police and other elements of the system remains a challenge.

I raise this issue not because I have a “magic bullet” for solving the coordination problem, but rather to remind you that achieving justice in these nations will require much more than reforming or reinventing an indigenous police force. That’s not to suggest that local police reform should wait for the rest of the justice system to come on board. The police are the first step in the justice process, and they play a pivotal role in maintaining order and building public support and confidence in the rule of law. What I am suggesting is that reform of the entire justice system will be a lengthier, more difficult process, and the results may never be ideal.

I hope my observations on the police organization are helpful as you continue to contemplate and redefine the role of civilian police in international peace operations. I would like to briefly turn my attention to a few of the more practical matters involved in organizing and staffing the civilian police function.

Staffing civilian police operations is a sticky issue, both for the people commanding these police forces and for those of us in U.S. law enforcement who are asked to supply many of the officers. You must recognize that just as nations are reluctant to commit military troops to open-ended peacekeeping commitments, so, too, are local police agencies reluctant to commit extensive resources to civilian police operations.

Faced with tight budgets and tremendously high political and community expectations of our own, police executives tend to view releasing our officers for months at a time for international peacekeeping duty to be a costly, no-win endeavor. And this is true not only for small departments, but for large ones as well. We are willing to do our part—police departments have done so for decades by accommodating those officers in the military reserves. But we also need to see more tangible benefits when our departments do commit officers to international efforts.

The military must make it easier and more attractive for police departments to commit officers to these operations, not just through monetary reimbursement, but also through such benefits as specialized training for program participants.

Rigorous recruiting and screening processes are essential, as officers are sought who have the skills, demeanor, and cultural sensitivity and awareness to handle these types of missions. And, in addition to police officers, peacekeeping missions should recruit from the prosecutorial, judicial, and correctional ranks as well, to assist in developing those parts of an indigenous justice system. Beyond personnel, U.S. police agencies can offer other resources to these operations—resources such as training, technical assistance, and executive-level mentoring. The International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program provides a good framework for this transfer of information and knowledge to take place.

Questions and Answers

Chuck English: I am from the State Department and am directly involved in recruiting U.S. personnel for CIVPOL missions. We’ve now had to do this in reactive mode for Haiti, Bosnia, and Eastern Slovonia, and that’s not the way we want to work it. We want to work it in a much more partnership-oriented approach, with major police departments such as your own. As a matter of fact, in thinking this through, to design the sort of cooperative program that we’d like to see take place, I would very much like to work with a designee of yours, so that we could do it in a way that makes sense for Chicago and other major police agencies, as we set up what might be a new concept in approaching civilian policing overseas. So my question is: Can I look to your agency as partner?

Superintendent Rodriguez: Yes, you can, and I’ll tell you why. You can look to our agency to continue to be cooperative in the future no matter what the needs are. We’ll toss and turn and cry and what have you, but we’ll provide assistance wherever we can. Sometimes as little as we can, depending on the circumstances in the city. But my point is: we will cooperate.

William O’Neill: Going back to recruiting, not only enough people but the right people. What about retired police officers? Would it be possible for you, or for any police force to keep a roster of retired police officers that you already have vetted at some point? Somehow keep them on call or available to use when it came time to recruit?

Superintendent Rodriguez: I think it’s an excellent idea. With the liberal pensions being provided in the United States today, a good many officers leave after 20-25 years of service and have accomplished a great deal and have an excellent record and might be perfect for the kind of situation you just described. I think again we need to establish the medium. We need to institutionalize, “standardize” because you don’t want just any retired officer. You’re looking for someone who meets the standards. I’m looking to send, and have represented, from a local criminal justice perspective, the finest officer possible.

Jeffery Ross: Jeffrey Ross, National Institute of Justice. At the risk of sounding crass, what benefit does your organization get from sending officers abroad? Can you think of something that might sweeten the pot?

Superintendent Rodriguez: Well, the most important thing, first if all, is standardizing procedures. I’m interested in a good beat officer being on the beat. It’s important that we have somebody who meets certain standards: your standards and our standards. It’s important that there is some benefit returned to us, whether its the experiences that were acquired during this operation, or something meaningful that can be conveyed to other officers, I’m not certain. We haven’t really sat down to talk about it. I’ll tell you what we’re getting right now: nothing directly or, to my knowledge indirectly, from any of the returnees. They go back to their former assignments, [and] in some instances if they’re gone at the wrong time they’ve lost promotional opportunities, they may have a new commanding officer who doesn’t know who they are, or where they came from, and who is looking to bring on other individuals and looking for someone who’s replaceable. It may create a whole lot of problems. And so when you ask me the benefits, they’re more intangible than tangible. What is needed is some process to certify achievement of identifiable standards, so that when that person leaves, and is gone for 3 months or 6 months, and returns to the Department, he or she comes back with some identifiable certification of recognition, as achieving that kind of a standard, and that they went off and did the service. This may even be career-enabling, to some degree. But typically that does not occur. And an award or certification is only as important as the individual who receives it, reviews it, and recognizes the laudatory intent of this thing, and that this is indeed a fine officer. But there is no such present recognition. You may get a certificate that you served with the State Department in a peacekeeping operation, but you know what’s absent is the indication that there was some kind of standard that you met. Or some standards that you exceeded, and for those reasons were chosen. That’s the kind of thing that I think is probably the most rewarding thing that you can provide any of the individuals who were chosen from our departments to serve.

Jan Stromsem: Jan Stromsem with ICITAP. I feel compelled to make a few comments. First, let me share some of the concerns that my colleague Chuck English expressed a few minutes ago, about the great challenge and difficulty we face in recruiting very talented police officers to go on these foreign missions. We at ICITAP probably need less in terms of numbers than the Department of State when they’re looking at fulfilling a CIVPOL type of mission. Let me describe some of the types of positions that we are looking to fill when we are approaching a foreign mission. It’s not only trainers, but we found perhaps the best way to approach instituting fundamental change and reoriented change in a country is placing what we call “technical advisors” or “senior advisors” at the highest level of the police that’s trying to undergo that change. By and large there’s absolutely no opportunity at all to train the executive level of a new policing service, whether it’s Haiti, or Albania. And, actually I’m looking for two people for Albania, by the way, at this very high, executive level. Using Albania as an example, what we try to do is place the senior executive with the Minister of the Interior, who’s in charge of implementing this whole change. The person will be involved in not only writing laws, but coming up with a new structure. How should the police operate? The fact is, they need to instill elements of accountability and community policing aspects [in their assignments].