7126
Thus, in 1995, when parliamentary rule was once again threatened by military officers and there was a risk of civil war, the Presidents of nearby Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe became involved in the defense of democracy in Lesotho. The negotiations were conducted by the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, who met with the armed forces, police and National Security Service of Lesotho in March 1995 and obtained the release of two senior officers who had been held captive. In helping to resolve the Constitutional crisis, the Secretary-General met also with the King Moshoeshoe II, Prime Minister Mokhehle, Cabinet members and leaders of opposition parties.
It was no accident that the conflicting parties of Lesotho asked the Commonwealth Secretariat to handle the negotiations rather than asking other international organizations or personalities. The Commonwealth had won the trust of the people of Lesotho through its support for the 1993 elections process. They had supplied the Chief Election Officer who established the preparations for the election (first the Director of Elections from Jamaica and later the Chief Electoral Officer from Trinidad and Tobago). In addition to a number of planning missions to advise in preparations for the election, during the elections they had sent an observer group headed by distinguished parliamentarians, election officers, ambassadors, jurists and ministers from eleven countries around the world.
The case of Lesotho and the Commonwealth Secretariat illustrates a transformation in inter-state relations: issues of political and military security have become not only the internal affairs of the country concerned, but also the concern of the international community. In this case the concern was not expressed in terms of military force, but rather in terms of electoral assistance and readiness to follow-up that assistance with third-party negotiation and non-violent conflict resolution when crises emerged.
Every institution must be transformed from its role in a culture of war to that in a culture of peace - including the military itself. Hence, it was of special significance when the Inter-American Defense College in Washington hosted in April 1995 a symposium on peace building and peace keeping co-sponsored by the Organization of American States (OAS) and UNESCO's Culture of Peace Programme.
The Secretary-General of the OAS called in his opening remarks for a 'profound redefinition of the concept of Hemispheric security as well as of the Inter American system of military confrontation.' 'We must include the military in our new thinking. We need a concept of security where the military are not just the policemen of conflicts broadcast on CNN,' added the Chairman of the OAS Standing Commission on Security.
In addition to the obvious use of the military for peace keeping, it was pointed out that they can also contribute unique skills and capabilities to peace building. As one participant said, 'We have restored electricity, rebuilt community water supplies, provided medical supplies, fixed up roads and bridges, restored ports. We have fixed up schools and started schools taught by our own military people. And very often military logistics officers in the UN contingents have managed seaports, airports, truck delivery systems, and warehouses.' A case in point described to the Symposium was the use of the UN military forces to undertake the complex and difficult logistical tasks of the election campaign in Cambodia.
The attitudes and perspectives of the military need to be transformed to contribute to a culture of peace. Thus, the Symposium suggested that short courses on peace-keeping should be introduced at the Inter-American Defense College and that a network of military war colleges and research institutions should be established
The attitudes and perspectives of the military itself need to be transformed so it can contribute to a culture of peace. The military has been isolated from the new thinking about the changing nature of security but in the future they need to be systematically included.