Crisis management – by and for whom?

As discussed previously in this blog (in Swedish under the heading “Krig eller fred?“), the concept of crisis management is a relatively new concept that has set roots in international and national political rhetoric. Just the other week the Swedish and Finnish Foreign Ministries hosted a seminar to discuss a comprehensive approach to crisis management as part of the process of the drafting of a new Strategic Concept for the military alliance NATO. The topic of the seminar is a good example of the mixing up of civilian and military concepts. It has been argued that the comprehensive approach is commonly understood as an approach aimed at integrating the political, security, development, rule of law, human rights and humanitarian dimensions of international missions. In the seminar however it became strikingly clear that different actors attach different preconditions to such integration. It is also clear that NATO’s ambition to manage crisis is not uncontroversial. On the contrary it has been met with suspicion for pragmatic reasons by other international actors such as Russia and humanitarian organisations and also for issues of principle by some experts and humanitarian organizations alike. This is certainly a cause for worry as, to re-use the words of President Ahtisaari during the seminar, “the image of danger is a self-fulfilling prophecy”. NATO’s new Strategic Concept needs to clarify NATO’s role in such a way as to make sure it is not perceived itself as a threat by other actors.

A full report from the NATO seminar in Helsinki may be read here.