Engaging with armed groups - Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue

Mediation Practice Seriessecular and internationalist approach. (The peace jirga held inAfghanistan in June 2010 concluded with a call for help fromMuslim countries, including Saudi Arabia and Turkey).• Pre-conditions : Rigid pre-conditions may not be an obstaclein the early phases of engagement (pre-negotiation), but willbecome so as parties move into “talks about talks”. Frequentlysuch conditions – whether they are for an end to violence,a ceasefire, recognition of an occupying power, or therenouncing of secessionist goals – touch upon either thearmed group’s primary source of leverage upon the process(its arms), or the core issue in contention. It should not surprisea potential mediator, or the armed group’s adversary, that thegroup in question will not be prepared to concede such issuesat the beginning of a process.• Absence of a clear or “realistic” agenda : A lack of clarityon what is wanted from a political process by the armed group,or the reiteration of maximalist but “impossible” goals (such asAl Qæda’s demands for the establishment of a new caliphate)both present obstacles to negotiations. Such obstacles neednot necessarily preclude other forms“You can negotiatewith someone who has apolitical agenda. The LRAdoes not have one.”Salva Kiir, First-Vice President of Sudan,President of the Government of SouthernSudan 13of engagement that might help shiftan armed group’s positions, or reachout to affiliates of the group in questionwith more localised concerns(such as Al Shabaab). However, inpractice, the perception that there is“nothing to talk about” with an armedgroup represents one of the mostfrequent deterrents to engagement.• Competition : The presence, or interest, of other potentialmediators can complicate engagement with an armed groupand overcrowd the mediation. In some cases – such as Darfurat different moments – it has not been just the rebels who dothe “forum shopping”. There have been external actors, some22