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

Mediation in African Peace Processes: Carefully Comparing Apples and Oranges
and all of them were male. It seems that non-
African chief mediators were only involved in
some cases where the UN has the lead in the
peace process (e.g., Maarti Ahtisaari in Namibia
in 1989, James Baker and Peter van Walsum in
Western Sahara), probably due to the global nature
of the UN, where Africans also play a role in
non-African conflicts. In most cases, however, a
regional organization or neighboring state had the
lead and the chief mediator was an African,
thereby highlighting the idea that African problems
have to be solved by Africans.
Mediators and experts behind the scenes: Besides
the chief mediator, who carries the overall
responsibility for the process and acts as the moral
guarantor of the process, all cases involved further
mediators, facilitators, and experts working behind
the scenes. Often their role is geared more
towards the details of the process such as moderating
sessions and committees, drafting documents
as foundations for further discussion, and
in general helping to design the process. Furthermore,
experts on various topics were called in
to give advice to many of the longer processes,
helping to clarify tricky issues and bring the parties
to a level playing field as regards knowledge
relevant for the negotiations. Such supporting
roles were played, in the Kenya negotiations, by
the NGO Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue
(HD), and in the Ivory Coast negotiations, by the
religious community of Sant’ Egidio. States often
also provide experts to support peace processes.
E.g., a Swiss mediator was involved in the Burundi,
Sudan North-South, Darfur, and Uganda-
LRA negotiations. The UN was also involved in
numerous ways in most of the cases we examined,
namely in the Sudan North-South, Darfur (after
Abuja), Burundi, CAR, Western Sahara, and Uganda-LRA
conflicts. The implementation of the Sudan
North-South agreement would not have been
possible without the UN. The fact that in most
cases the lead mediator was an African did not
prevent many others from supporting the lead
mediator with both human and financial resources.
Mediation style – combining facilitative and
directive approaches: The literature on mediation
investigates the extent to which various me-
diation styles (e.g., facilitative, formulative, directive,
manipulative) lead to different kinds of mediation
outcomes. Empirical studies seem to indicate
that manipulative mediation is more likely to
lead to an agreement, while facilitative mediation
is more likely to lead to longer-term tension reduction.
11 It is very difficult, however, to label a
peace process according to these three mediation
styles, as most peace processes go through various
phases during which the form and style of mediation
changes. The Ivory Coast Ouagadougou negotiations
seem to be an example of the use of a
predominately facilitative style that helped to create
a breakthrough after more heavy-handed processes
had failed. Burundi and Sudan North-South
seem to be examples of both directive and nondirective
mediation styles, depending on the
phase and issue. Both Nelson Mandela and Kofi
Annan used moral pressure to get the parties to
overcome hurdles. In order to be successful, however,
these approaches have to be accepted by the
conflict parties.
In some processes (e.g., Burundi, Congo/Kivu,
North-Mali/North-Niger – Tuareg, Somalia Khartoum
negotiations, and CAR pre-talks), financial
incentives in the form of per diems or possible future
access to finances seemed to be an important
incentive for the parties to attend. In many processes
(e.g. Burundi, Sudan North-South), the
mediators formulated draft texts – often causing
heated reactions from the parties. Nevertheless,
by continuing to work and adapt the draft, the
process moved ahead. James Baker used an approach
that can be viewed as being formulative,
as he drafted an agreement, but had no power to
get the parties to sign or implement his plan. A
draft peace agreement that can be changed by the
parties, but where there is a deadline that imposes
limitations on the scope for any adaptation, is
practically the same as a “take it or leave it” text.
It is questionable whether this constitutes mediation
at all, or whether it is not instead a form of
non-binding arbitration. The same seems to apply
to the final stages of the Darfur negotiations: the
document was drafted by the mediators; however,
the parties had very little time to amend, adapt,
or shape it in the way they wanted, thus indicat-
11 Beardsley et al., 2006, op cit.
17