LEADERSHIP TRAINING FOR PEACEBUILDING OPERATIONS Mustafa Kemal TOPCU * Unsal SIGRI ** * Ph.D., Lecturer, National Defense University, Ankara, Turkey ** Prof. dr., Baskent University, Ankara, Turkey Threats were specified and in mass in the past, and then are transformed to multi-directional, multi- dimensional, and volatile structure in early 21st century. Hence uncertainty and instability dominate operational area. Today, security is comprehended solely not military but political, economic, lawful, psychological, and technological in a holistic approach. Towards this end, global security environment may be defined with three key words: circulation, complexity, and contingency. Within this context, aim of the mission is to enforce peace and restore stability by proactive measures. However, it seems impossible to have fruitful results in peace building operations by training 21st century people with a mindset of pre-Cold War time. Hence, the study aims at revealing the need for change in curriculum of officers to get deployed in peace building operations. The study, therefore, proposes a unified body taking on nationwide responsibility to manage training operations, and lays out relevant programs and tools to be included in curriculum. Key words: Military Leadership, Contingent Leadership, Operational Leadership, Leadership, UN, PKO, Peacebuilding 1. INTRODUCTION Peacebuilding operations are missions to provide nations sustainable peace and security conditions aiming to aid in settlement of political stabilization (UN, 2008). We may categorize peacebuilding operations into three groups. Very first operations resolve conflicts between/among parties and secure peace agreements (Kühne, 1999). The United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF), the United Nations Peacebuilding Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP), and the United Nations Disagreement Observer Force (UNDOF) are classical missions (Sigri & Basar, 2014). Unsuccessful operations following the end of Cold War are the turning point for peacebuilding operations (Kühne, 1999). It is renown that the end of Cold War transformed the civil-military system (Kiss, 2000, p. xiii). Accordingly, the structure of peacebuilding operations changed from passive observation to active participation (Dandeker & Gow, 1997). The missions, aimed to establish sustainable peace environments by removing root causes. The United Nations Transition Assistance Group (UNTAG), the United Nations Operations in Mozambique (UNOMOZ) and the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC) may be some examples in this sense (Sigri & Basar, 2014). 9/11 is another milestone that shaped international security understanding. Threats were specified and in mass, and then were transformed to multi-directional, multi-dimensional, and volatile structure following 9/11. Hence uncertainty and instability dominate operational area. Today, security is comprehended solely not military but politically, economic, lawful, psychological, and technological in a holistic approach. Dillon (2005) describes global security environment with three key words: circulation, complexity, and contingency. Within this context, aim of the mission is to enforce peace and restore stability by proactive measures. The United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR), the United Nations Mission in Haiti (UNMIH), and the United Nations Transitional Administration for Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium (UNTAES) are first examples of this generation (Sigri & Basar, 2014). Page 64