Unpacking the Mystery of Mediation in African Peace ... - Swisspeace

Mediation in African Peace Processes: Carefully Comparing Apples and Oranges
but actually mediated in the bordering country,
as any conflict spill-over (migration, organized
crime, armed groups) also leads to insecurity at
home.
Context with mixed impacts: The Sudan North-
South process is an example of transition through
various phases where the context was supportive,
neutral, or even impeded progress. The IGAD
countries Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Uganda
were much more coordinated and thus supportive
at the onset of the Sudan North-South negotiations
than towards the end, when they became
preoccupied with the Ethiopia-Eritrea clashes or
tensions in Somalia. The attacks on 11 September
2001 seem to have helped kick off the Sudan negotiations,
as Sudan feared it would be attacked
similarly to Afghanistan if the country did not
show some goodwill, but later on, the CIA also
benefited from intelligence provided by the Government
of Sudan (GoS) on Islamic groups, making
it easier for the GoS to slow down the process
and have their say. The process enjoyed financial
and political support from the US, the UK, and
Norway (Troika), as well as the EU and the UN.
The chief mediator, Lt. Gen. Sumbeiywo, managed
to protect the process from too much external
intervention – it is reported that he even
threatened to shoot the US envoy when the latter
became too intrusive. 8 The Ugandan-LRA negotiations
began shortly after North and South Sudan
signed their peace agreement. The LRA had
acted as a proxy rebel group for the northern
GoS, helping it to fight against the SPLM in the
South. Once the Sudanese had struck a deal with
each other, the LRA lost its support, putting it
under pressure that helped to open up negotiations
with the Ugandan government.
Impeding context: In the following processes, the
context seemed detrimental: Darfur, Somalia,
Western Sahara, North-Mali/North-Niger – Tuareg
and Congo/Kivu. In Darfur, the regional
states of Libya, Chad, and Eritrea were funding
one or the other of the conflict parties. In the US,
a strong domestic lobby was calling for swift action,
and China had interests in the maintaining
8 Martin, Harriet: “Kings of Peace, Pawns of War: The Untold
Story of Peace-Making”, London, New York: Continuum International
Publishing Group (2006), p.137.
the stability of the Sudanese regime due to its oil
interests in the country. Furthermore, the parties
still felt they could gain more on the battlefield
than at the negotiation table. In Western Sahara,
the governments of Algeria and of Mauritania,
the former colonial power France, and the US
each had visions of their own for the outcome,
which did not necessarily agree with the UN’s vision
at the time James Baker was working on the
conflict. In the North-Mali/North-Niger – Tuareg
negotiations, Libya had a strong regional
agenda that motivated it to mediate, but it may
also have been interested in strengthening ties
with certain parties, even if no agreement was
struck. The US counter-terrorism policy
throughout the Sahel zone has also caused most
non-governmental actors to be branded terrorists,
making it easier for governments to pursue them
militarily rather than to talk with them, e.g., in
Niger. In the Congo/Kivu negotiations, Rwanda
and Uganda were missing at the negotiations, but
would have been key actors. In Somalia, Ethiopia
– backed by the US’s counter-terrorism approach
– was pursuing a military solution against the Islamic
courts, thus leaving extremely little room
for any mediation process.
In summary, context matters! If the context is
strongly detrimental to the process, it is very hard
to reach a sustainable outcome. However, most
processes go through phases where the context is
variously supportive, neutral, or impeding. During
difficult phases, the process may slow down,
only to pick up again when the context changes.
The key challenge for a mediator is to analyze the
context and see how best to design the process to
fit it. At times, it may be better to lie low and
wait for a more favorable context. Probably, it is
useful to stay involved and engaged during these
difficult phases, but not to fund major meetings,
as long as they have little chance of being productive.
Donors who want to be effective need patience
and perseverance.
Process
The process factors analyzed in the 11 case studies
comprised participation, mediation style,
third-party coordination, and mediation setup.
13