Ignoring or excluding armed groups from conflict resolution processes usually leads to further violence. Here, Uganda's chief negotiator Betty Bigombe (right) talks with Lord's Resistance Army representatives near the Uganda-Sudan border in December 2004.
Source: Reuters.
The politics of peacemaking
by Celia McKeon, Accord programme manager/series editor, Conciliation Resources
Published in The Liberal (Charity of the Month section), Issue IV, 2005.
“No task is more fundamental … than the prevention and resolution of deadly conflict.” These are the words of United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan, setting out a vision for twenty-first century multilateralism in his recent report, ‘In larger freedom’.
Few people would disagree. Whether under the media spotlight in Sudan or out of the public gaze in Burma, armed conflicts on every continent continue to destroy the lives and livelihoods of millions of people. Yet diplomatic efforts to prevent and resolve these situations must take account of significant changes in how wars are now waged. The dynamics of violence have shifted and non-state armed groups are now at the heart of many armed conflicts, challenging governments and battling to control territory, resources or the levers of power. The frontline of modern warfare has moved from the battlefield to schools, high streets and hotels. Civilians are no longer only unwitting casualties, caught in the crossfire; in many situations they are now deliberate targets.
These realities require new approaches to the gritty task of making peace. Sustainable settlements of internal armed conflicts are rarely brought about by the military defeat of one of the parties, or the re-drawing of international borders. Instead, agreements are reached after painstaking processes of dialogue, often beginning with long periods of discreet talks and confidence-building measures, which, if successful, may be followed by political negotiations. The result can be a peace agreement that ushers in new constitutional arrangements, reform of the security services, or re-allocation of natural resources. It may involve the reintegration of former combatants, and require divided communities to live together once again.
Conciliation Resources (CR) believes such complex challenges therefore require equally complex peace processes. Yet as a non-governmental organization supporting civil society peace initiatives in several countries, we are acutely aware that the hard-won lessons of recent years are not being learnt. In particular the nature of armed conflict today requires greater recognition of the multiple constituencies with a stake in any agreement, and a much more serious commitment to the principles of inclusion and popular ownership. And this is where the current international system, with its emphasis on state-led diplomacy, is at its weakest. Governments and multilateral organizations are often most comfortable dealing with other state representatives. They are less adept with the other actors involved in armed conflicts. The result is a failure to engage effectively with two significant non-state constituencies: armed groups and civil society.
Armed groups' objectives and their use of violence naturally spark controversies about appropriate responses to their actions, particularly in the context of the ‘war on terror’. Yet attempting to ignore, destroy or exclude them from conflict resolution processes usually leads to further violence, as conflicts in northern Uganda, Nepal and Colombia demonstrate.
A new publication from CR, 'Choosing to engage: armed groups and peace processes', identifies an array of effective engagement options for reducing violence. In the early stages, they often include initiatives on humanitarian issues, or training in conflict resolution techniques, which are frequently instigated by non-governmental actors such as local religious leaders or international agencies. Unlike governmental representatives, their ability to work discreetly enables them to reach out to armed groups in ways that build confidence or alleviate the effects of the conflict. They often help create the conditions for more formal peace talks between opponents. This largely invisible face of contemporary peacemaking illustrates the different social and political arenas in which complex peace processes need to work.
But armed groups are not the only actors towards whom a different approach is needed. The public has a right to contribute to peace processes that determine how their country is governed and resources allocated. Communities fractured by violence have a stake in what a shared future looks like. It is possible to create mechanisms for public participation in peace processes, as demonstrated in Guatemala and South Africa. Yet while broader participation has resulted in more durable agreements, traditional diplomatic interventions still focus on engaging elite power-brokers in exclusive negotiations.
Policymakers must embrace a new paradigm of peacemaking. They need to value the diversity of unofficial actors who contribute to ending violent conflict, and recognize that peace agreements have to work at many levels, from the village to the parliament. They need to understand that inclusive processes are more likely to generate the popular support necessary for a sustainable settlement, capable both of resolving current conflict and preventing future violence.
In the last fifteen years, more armed conflicts have ended through peace processes than in any other way. Lack of experience can no longer be used as an excuse. It is time to apply the lessons learned in recent years and bring peacemaking into the twenty-first century.
Conciliation Resources (CR) supports people working to prevent violence, promote justice and transform conflict into opportunities for development. It works with partners in the Caucasus, Fiji, West Africa and northern Uganda, and produces the publication series 'Accord, an international review of peace initiatives'. Choosing to engage: is available free online and can also be ordered direct from CR.
