Engaging with armed groups - Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue

Mediation Practice Series• Individual states : Individual state mediators – from the UnitedStates to prominent regional actors such as Nigeria, SouthAfrica, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey andQatar – are able to wield relative power and influence overconflict parties. However, their own interests in a conflict’soutcome, or concerns with the issue of terrorism, may inhibittheir engagement with armed groups. In Europe, peacemakinghas flourished in two states – Norway and Switzerland – thatare not members of the European Union and are therefore notconditioned by its listing of terrorist entities.• Private mediators : Independent international mediatorsinclude both private organisations and prestigious individuals.Although “weak” mediators, to the extent that they have toborrow leverage from others, private mediators engage witharmed groups with particular advantages. They are small,flexible and independent, and can engage early (and withdiscretion) with groups others might consider pariahs, or notyet meriting attention. Their involvement is inherently less threateningto a government than that of an official actor, and carrieswith it the important attribute of deniability. However, they canalso be dismissed from a process with no great political costand will need to link up to official actors as mediation advances.4Identifying challenges and risksFor a mediator or facilitator decisions regarding whether, and how,to engage will be rooted in detailed analysis of the armed group aswell as the broader context within which it is active. Is the struggleto take part in (or take over) the national government, secession,or for control of territory and resources within existing borders ? Isthe composition of the group determined by ethnicity, or in religiousterms ? To what extent are structures of command and controlidentifiable and accessible ? (In some cases, as in Aceh, this mayinvolve relations between field commanders and a more distant,18