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

Unpacking the Mystery of Mediation in African Peace Processes
ing a directive if not manipulative style of mediation.
Process design: Process design includes questions
of venue, participation, phases, agenda, etc. Most
of the longer processes had long pre-talks aimed
at securing agreements on the process design and
a clear framework before beginning discussions
on substance. Some of the shorter processes we
looked at, e.g., Somalia Khartoum negotiations,
North-Mali/North-Niger – Tuareg negotiations,
however, seem to have lacked a clear design, and
were instead organized in an ad-hoc fashion. The
cases highlight a creative mix of possible formats
in many of the processes: The Congo/Kivu process
consisted of a conference of 1,500 people that
was held in parallel with small meetings of 50
people. The Uganda-LRA process featured numerous
parallel formats (the Juba negotiations,
talks in the bush or via telephone, civil society
participation in Juba, and visits of the LRA delegates
to Kampala and Northern Uganda), seeking
to overcome the limitations that were imposed on
the process. The Burundi Arusha negotiations
featured five committees on various topics working
in parallel, each mediated by different comediators,
and responsible to the overall secretariat
under the presidency of the chief mediator.
The Sudan North-South negotiations combined
plenary meetings of the two main parties, i.e., involving
about 12 people on each delegation, with
working groups on topics and face-to-face meetings
between the heads of delegations. Overall,
the cases indicate that a good process design is extremely
helpful, as long as it is also flexible
enough to adapt to unfolding events and changing
contexts.
In summary, the cases seem to indicate that most
mediators use a mix of non-directive and directive
mediation styles. The style changes depending on
the phase of a process. The chief mediator may
also use a directive or even manipulative style, but
in this case, he relies on a team of mediators that
may well use a facilitative style at the same time,
building confidence with the parties. Furthermore,
pressure may come from external parties
and observers, allowing the mediator to adopt a
more facilitative approach. In short: Pressure and
dialogue must be combined. In addition to direct
18
pressure imposed by external actors, external actors
may also have their own agenda, which may
at times even be antagonistic to the substance of
what the two conflict parties can agree on. In
such cases, mediators do not only deal with the
conflict between the parties, but also come under
pressure from the international community. As
far as the question of timing is concerned, the
mediators are often not in control. In most processes,
the timeframes are shaped by external actors
and even funding constraints. The Darfur process
went through a procession of missed deadlines
until the final deadline forced the parties to accelerate
beyond their pace. The time pressure imposed
by the international community is understandable,
but if it disrupts the process and causes
a resumption of war, it is counter-productive.
Conclusions
The cases cover a broad range of mediators, mediation
styles, and forms of participation. Nevertheless,
we can identify some patterns and advance
tentative hypotheses:
First, the geo-political context and interests of neighboring
states set the framework in which a peace
process takes place: Peace processes occur between
the conflict parties directly concerned. If the
global or regional states hinder any agreement between
these actors, however, it is highly unlikely
that the peace process will be effective. In such
cases, pressure on, and dialog with, the regional
states is needed, as now for example in Darfur. A
modicum of agreement between the regional actors
and amongst great powers such as the US,
China, and Russia is an essential pre-condition
for a successful peace process. Mediation is not
the only tool needed to make peace; it must be
seen as one among others, including economic
sanctions, military peace support operations,
longer-term development cooperation and peacebuilding.
Second, African conflicts are typically mediated by
African chief mediators, supported by international
experts and finances: Most of the chief mediators
in the cases we examined were Africans, yet the
teams supporting them included various organizations
(states, regional and international organi-