In 1998 I worked for Angus Brohwmeir Consulting and provided these thoughts on the subject of Peace Negotiations.I referred to a process I called a "Negotiated Governance". This phrase describes the move through a transition from armed conflict to peace.
The process of negotiated governance provides the opportunity to work through the ups and downs of peace building while making progress. Negotiated governance defines a process that is put in place where all parties involved build a solid agreeable framework. This framework will result in an outcome negotiated to the satisfaction of all involved to govern present and future interactions. To draw a comparison, the end result of a successful negotiated governance process will look like a constitution.
The process of negotiated governance begins when the need arises due to societal collapse. It is quite clear that the first step is a cease fire in order to separate those involved. This will involve military action. This paper advises that all necessary force be used to impose the cease fire as quickly as possible. At this point it must be understood that we are dealing with no small matter. Speed and force must be shown to quell any thoughts of the importance or determination on the part of those that intervene to end the conflict. The quicker the violence is suppressed and the sides separated the better, with all due consideration for civilians. The most important portion here is the determination factor or political will. Without the will to solve a problem, the problem continues. Peace is a process not a race. The strength of a society is built on the lasting wisdom of the rules of governance and those rules have to be negotiated.
It
has been evident for some time that a more effective approach to
building peaceful societies after armed conflict is needed. To move
through a transition from armed conflict to peace, there must be
consideration of some plan before, during and after a conflict.
The United Nations and other world bodies have had difficulty with
the transition period from conflict to peace. To this end it seems
there has been very little successful experience in the art of
negotiated governance. This paper will discuss the idea of
negotiated governance by defining what each stage involves, how each
stage will be recognized and the manner in which to deal with
possible flare-ups.
The
need for a peace process will never disappear. Life will always
present its challenges and we must rise to the occasion. While
conflict will always be with us, our manner in which we deal with
conflict can be altered. Quick fixes and short shortsightedness will
only breed more unrest. What is needed is the will to do the best
possible job with the greatest amount of lasting impact. Having time
limits on creating a peaceful society is almost insane. We can not
even predict the next three days let alone predict the future of a
nation that has just gone through certain hell. In fact the one
element that should be a benefit is time. "There is a problem
when Israel and the Arab nations negotiate. the Arabs have all the
time in the world and the Israelis need a solution now".
The only time there is a need to rush is to get a peace process
started.
The
process of negotiated governance provides the opportunity to work
through the ups and downs while making progress, "we have to
recognize that it's not an event. It's not just an election, but a
long-term process...the challenge is building real working solutions
capable of responding to the needs of their citizens...".
Negotiated governance defines a process that is put in place where
all parties involved build a solid agreeable framework. This
framework will result in an outcome negotiated to the satisfaction of
all involved to govern present and future interactions. To draw a
comparison, the end result of a successful negotiated governance
process will look like a constitution.
The
process begins when the need arises and the Security Council agrees
to act. It is quite clear that the first step is a cease fire in
order to separate those involved. This will involve military action.
This paper advises that all necessary force be used to impose the
cease fire as quickly as possible. At this point it must be
understood that we are dealing with no small matter. Speed and force
must be shown to quell any thoughts of the importance or
determination on the part of those that intervene to end the
conflict. The quicker the violence is suppressed and the sides
separated the better, with all due consideration for civilians. The
most important portion here is the determination factor or political
will. Without the will to solve a problem, the problem continues.
To
make an example, we can look at the role of the United Nations in
Cyprus, "The situation in Cyprus did not resolve the underlying
problem, ensure a lasting peace or have an exit strategy"
All of this is true to an extent. First of all an exit strategy is
good to have. The fact is, it is almost impossible to say when a
conflict will end. The only real determination of the end is when
military forces are no longer needed and the society is stable
without them. Peace is a process not a race. The strength of a
society is built on the lasting wisdom of the rules of governance and
those rules have to be negotiated.
Once
all the weapons have been accounted for, the cease fire can be seen
as a building block for future goodwill. This next part of the cease
fire is a very contentious issue. This paper advises that the
intervening military (United Nations Peacekeepers) be divided up and
put under the guidance of each recognized leader. For example, in
the Israeli/Palestinian conflict each side would agree to have their
own military stand down and replaced by UN Peacekeepers.
The
rules for Peacekeepers remains the same, as do the reporting system
and the supreme command of the Security Council is still in effect.
What will be different is that the leaders of each side will have a
force at their disposal to ensure peace and order are followed in the
areas they need. By taking this action we remove the threat of
recurring violence almost in its entirety through the military
personnel.
Now
we have a force that is the only armed force, has instant credibility
and is accountable for any action taken. The civilians gain a sense
of trust because the person carrying the guns are not to be feared.
The negotiation process gains a sense of ease that order will be
maintained and in a manner that each leader intends. As well as
maintaining peace and order the military personnel can document
evidence concerning human rights abuses, war crimes and crimes
against humanity.
As
the cease fire is being enforced there always exists the possibility
of a return to violence. This threat will continue to be a concern
for ever yet the will to enforce agreed rules must be the focus. Not
only are the lives of the civilians at stake but so is the
credibility of the leaders and the soldiers of the United Nations
forces at risk. The only way that a negotiated governance will last
is by acknowledging the rule of law. Having to question any
participants will to resolve the conflict can only prolong the cease
fire atmosphere and the heavy military presence.
If
the ceasefire is broken decisions will have to be made about the
removal of some military personnel from the region entirely. The
processing of suspect military personnel for deportation will begin
so as to further enhance the chances of success. These soldiers are
to be taken out of the area for processing, training and slowly
reintegrated over time. Having to make this decision is an extreme
measure. Only when the cease fire has been broken and the process of
negotiations is in jeopardy will this step have to be taken against
leaders into consideration.
The
conditions set out by the negotiated governance process during step
one involve total disarmament, UN Peacekeeping Forces acting as the
state military and the removal of the former military personnel for
retraining are non-negotiable. A peaceful existence for the citizens
takes precedents over any desire for power or control. It must be
stated that the situation was in utter disarray and order will be put
back in place at any cost.
"Military
strength comes to be seen as to preserve rights and secure society".
Again the will and determination to end the violence is vital. At
this stage there needs to be a separation of law makers and law
enforcers. The priority of the military remains to hold or keep the
peace yet the side effects are evident. A part of the side effects
are a sense that a secure society has returned.
This
phase of the cease fire involves reaffirming the authority of
political leaders/representatives of each group so that negotiations
can take place. The same people that were in contact for the initial
implementation of the cease fire may not be suitable for the
negotiations. The reasons for suitability may lay in the number of
cease fire breeches, clear evidence of distributing misinformation,
criminal activity, or any number of issues that indicates poor
accountability, trust or legitimacy as a representative of the
people.
The
person chosen to be recognized as the representative must have the
credibility to agree to the terms being discussed. "Peacemaking
is impossible without a strong, integrated political leadership"
The first agreement on which trust is being built is the peaceful
co-existence of all people. We are in the early stages of the
negotiated governance process and violence maybe a social normality
that crept into the minds of some civilians over the course of the
conflict.
How
these breeches of the peace are dealt with will greatly enhance or
hinder the legitimacy of the United Nations Peacekeeping forces. We
can look to the events of 1967 and see how the failure to quell
hostilities undermined the process and resulted in the Six Days War.
"That the Six-day War occurred, demonstrated that the underlying
dispute was not solved. The 1967 Arab-Israeli war only made the
disputes more intractable"
The
cease fire stage will continue as long as the acts of aggression take
place. "Factors that impede progress are historical memory,
regional hostilities, and a reluctance to change the status quo".
If the leaders of a particular group can not fulfill its obligation
then it falls upon the United Nations to be that leadership until a
new credible leader is chosen.
The
next step of the negotiated governance is the implementation. The
process of a negotiated governance is a living thing. As the process
unfolds the ideas that are agreed upon are implemented immediately as
best as they can. This allows the negotiations to see where the next
problems may take root and deal with them at the time when change is
all around. Such event as elections, infrastructure building and,
getting to the underlying support for the downward spiral are all
steps to be taken.
Focus
now is shifted away from the military to the civilian actors. The
people involved in the negotiation may even change dramatically from
a less military presence (because security was the main issue) to a
greater presence of civilian political, government and
non-governmental organizations. Also the environment of the process
changes. The authority of the military needs to be appreciated and
allowed to provide the security.
The
focus on refugee camps, food distribution, water, health, education,
and government are all part of this step in the process of negotiated
governance. Infrastructure needs to be put back in place such as
schools, hospitals and, judicial system. Other institutions may need
to be introduced as well at this stage such as Truth and
Reconciliation Commissions and the furthering work for any crimes
against humanity that need to be investigated. Along with these
initiatives the importance of focus on the eventual elections for
public office must be kept in perspective.
At
this step the leaders will also have to work more closely in order to
provide a sound foundation for future dealings in case a breakdown in
the peace takes hold. As much as the cease fire helps in building
the peace the hardest job is the mental shift for the citizens that
have lived through the conflict. "There can be no genuine peace
in human affairs unless individuals and groups are treated with
respect and righteousness".
At
this stage of negotiated governance, treating people with respect and
righteousness takes its roots. Human dignity and self-esteem are
slowly built up in the same fashion as the schools, hospitals,
judicial system and governments. This stage can be said that it
begins to deal with the hearts and minds of the people, "Identity,
security and, similarly powerful collective needs and, the fears and
concerns about survival associated with them, are often important
causal factors in conflict".
What
does this all mean for the person living everyday before, during and,
after the conflict. How will that person notice the change from
conflict to peace when a flare-up is likely to take place? As the
conflict is being resolved for some it is not quick enough. There
are still feelings of mistrust such as the Hamas had after Israel
pulled out of the Gaza Strip, "Armed resistance, not
negotiations, have forced Israel out, We are going to keep our
weapons because the battle with the enemy is a long one".
The affects of violence must be dealt with on a constant basis
through correct information and education.
At
this stage the building of a nation becomes more evident. Not only
are the national frameworks being put together but the local levels
must also be put back together. Local community groups are needed to
form ad hoc schools, hospitals, information centres for economic
growth. Those tasks are large enough yet the influx of returning
refugees must be accounted for, even if that may not be a reality for
sometime.
Non-governmental
organizations are best suited to assist with this transition.
Focusing on the local areas and then building national policy based
on the commonalities of all. "Moving from the actual defense
system to the stance of politics and peace with the understanding
that governments are derived from the will of the people".
How long it will be before this ideology takes hold is not known.
Even in Canada people have a belief that government is separate from
the people. After a violent conflict it is difficult to understand
that the citizens of the nations allowed the type of environment they
just went through to exist.
As
the local communities are being put together the focus on the
national levels are about elections. The very style of government
that will be used is a major topic for discussion. Democracy is the
most preferred and has been spreading. This may not be the style
that the people will choose to have though. To that end, the people
involved in the negotiation process must be flexible to allow such
ideas to be worked through fully.
There
must be some way for the public to go through healing other than the
negotiation process, which is more about policy and guidelines than
healing. The decision to be made is whether or not to form a Truth
and Reconciliation Commission, "These commissions provide a
chance for citizens to learn that other members of the community are
able to rediscover each other as human beings."
As a society goes through a violent conflict the people realize how
fragile civilization is. The other side of conflict demonstrates the
resilience of people to survive through the most horrendous
conditions.
The
process of negotiated governance respects the struggles of a society
and allows the flexibility of thought and action to transform reality
in the individual and the collective.
"We
need a conversion that changes the individuals and society of
nations. Though the difficulties of such a conversion are
staggering, we must not conclude they are insurmountable."
Having the local groups begin their own transformation through
conflict with guidance's from NGO's and state government allows for
an inclusive work to take root at the national level.
As
the negotiated governance process continues the two most far reaching
and noticeable events may be the cease fire and the building of a
truth and reconciliation commission. The next visible and far
reaching step is to initiate elections of some form. This was
mentioned earlier, concerning democracy as a choice of government.
What ever the style chosen the people are the ones that must be
consulted. The root of the entire process of negotiated governance
boils down to the fact that for humanity sake you must always provide
options. This sentiment relates to your own personal life and in the
dealings with others.
For
the average person involved in the ordeal, they would have seen the
actions of a cease fire put in place. Through that cease fire there
may have been a number of uprisings that needed to be suppressed.
News of discussion concerning the peace talks would flourish. As
those talks continue and the peacekeeping forces become a regular
part of life, societies begin to work together on community projects
such as schools, hospitals, and other avenues for healing, such as
truth and reconciliation endeavours.
The
reintegration of refugees will take place at such a rate that there
will be no overt strain on society. Even though the process is going
well the integration of refugees can add untold stress if undertaken
poorly resulting in renewed conflict.
A
thorough look at the reasons for the re-escalation will need to be
investigated and the possible involvement of external factors such as
other states or organizations. It may even be possible that the
people at the table had inadvertently caused the situation. What
ever the reason it must be fully investigated and faith in the
process reaffirmed. "Society must remain optimistic that even
the most contentious or complex issue can be handled through
cooperative efforts and collaborative arrangements."
Currently
we can look at the situations in Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq and, Haiti
as examples of how the international community is dealing with
interstate conflict and the efforts to negotiate peaceful solutions.
Each situation has its own set of difficulties and will require
specific agreements for each one. However they may differ the one
thing that remains the same is the overall desire for a long lasting
solution.
In
Sudan we can see the effects Canada has made through the
implementation of the 3D approach. This approach melds development,
diplomacy and, defence together in focused plan. Canada works with
the leaders of the nation,other NGO's and it own aid agency Canadian
International Development Agency to develop the strategy for the 3D
approach. Searching for new ways of assisting those areas that are
caught in the cycle of violence is fraught with risk.
In
Sudan, Canada would assist with the development of schools,
hospitals, and infrastructure to assist with internally displaced
people. At the same time as defence operations are taking place.
The defence portion assists with holding a working cease fire plan so
that the leaders in Sudan can work on negotiating a peace agreement.
As part of the diplomacy section of the 3 D approach, Canada also has
experts in nation building and policy reform at the table.
In
Afghanistan Canada is assisting with the defence of the nation. The
government in Afghanistan is quite fragile and is working on
stabilizing a government that will be respected throughout the entire
nation. In essence there is no cease fire in effect. Yet elections
are being held and infrastructure is building up.
The
situation in Afghanistan has been a unique one in that the leaders of
the warring parties are not able to sit down and negotiate a
governance. This posses its own set of problems. One being how can
you be inclusive if one side of the equation is missing? This is why
there exist no cease fire protocol and may never even have one. The
approach in Afghanistan is to reach out to the various tribal leaders
and seek concessions that will foster relations to support the
central government. It is a patchwork set of circumstances held
together loosely. Another element that needs to be taken into
consideration is the geography of the country. A vast array of
mountains and sparsely populated. Reaching out to all the people for
elections can be a daunting task and even when you do reach them, how
can their safety be ensured if there is no support, military or
otherwise?
Afghanistan
is a prime example of how time must be given to accomplish the end
goal. The military action was successful in ousting the former
government yet the vast geography made the victory somewhat passive.
"The short war began on October 7, and ended in December
followed soon after with the inauguration of Hamid Karzai as interim
Prime Minister"
The quick progression of events left the world wondering how all
this could come about. "If anyone is to replace the leaders in
Afghanistan, it will have to be the people of Afghanistan themselves.
Any doubters should ask the British and the Russians"
The example of the will of the people to govern themselves is
evident, even if the system of government is seen as " its
natural state of ethnic and factional squabbling.".
The
process of negotiated governance is a working living thing. It will
adapt too any situation that the people wish it to and that can
create tension. The attempts to bring peace in Democratic Republic
of Congo, Cyprus, Israel, Palestine and, Haiti are good example of
how frustrated people can get if the situation seems to be stalling.
The measure here is whether or not the situation is spiraling
downward, and it is not. Are there situations that have taken place
to question the process, absolutely. It must be understood that the
process may be slow yet it is working on a very difficult task.
In
Haiti, we can see the effects of ending the operations too soon. As
eluded to earlier, the notion of a failed state is represented with
Haiti. "Haiti is a truly failed state that has gone through
invasion, extermination, degradation and disintegration since 1492".
The recent Haitian problem began with President Aristides being
overthrown in 1992.
Throughout
the 1990's a series of United Nations missions and resolution went
into action ending in 1997. "The total monetary commitment in
the 1990's equals $401 million Cnd"
The resolve to secure lasting peace must be present for any action
lest there is a desire to go through the entire process more than
once, as the situation in Haiti displayed.
Today
Canada is back in Haiti. This time there is the process of the 3D
approach, mentioned above. "Far too often we have seen the
tragic consequences that result from failure to act on principles
which form the very basis of intervention".
The process of negotiated governance allows for setbacks. The
important factor is the courage that needs to be displayed when faced
with adversity.
Canada
has taken some knocks over its involvement in Haiti yet the
responsibility must also lay at the feet of the Haitians themselves.
The international community has been chastised over such failures and
the United Nations is usually the face that is present. "The
performance of peacekeeping operations is considerably less
impressive than its mixed record on limiting armed conflict."
The
development of nation building and peacekeeping are quite new to the
world. It must be understood that these are experiments. The
success of one process can add knowledge to another. Just as the
failure of one mission can add wisdom to the overall process. Quick
fixes are good for the media and short term political goals. Yet for
effective solutions the people of the international community and
more so the people that live in the conflict area must be prepared
for the cycle of violence that can erupt for any number of reasons.
A calm resolve to work through the process is needed. Strong
leadership of the situation and a clear message goes along way in
sustaining the drive to accomplish a peaceful society.
We
live in a world that is solution based. When those solution do not
meet deadlines quickly enough the situation is seen as hopeless and
blame is spread thick. "Do not fight the problem".
Sound advice considering a great deal of resources are spent to know
what the problem is so that it can be fought.
Once
the steps of a cease fire, community building, nation building and a
healing process have been put into action and elections have been
held another step in the process can be taken. "Society needs
to work together towards unearthing the unhealthy patterns of
conflict and start building organizations that work to create
community-based dialogue that is inclusive and responsible"
When
the process of negotiated governance is undertaken, the difficulties
lay with the impression that nothing is being done. Action is wanted
and violence is the action most likely to be used. In the past we
have seen where the transition from chaos to order is ill conceived
and poorly executed at all stages when violence erupts, "...should
such threats emerge, we must be better prepared to respond".
The reason for the such failures can be related to the lack of focus
or cohesive efforts of all the actors involved. Until recently there
had been no set objective for all the actors to adhere to other than
the broad scope of peace in the region.
The
question of how the negotiations will progress is a difficult one.
Truthfully it must be stated that no one can predict the future or
knows how the process will unfold. However, having all the actors
organized and working together is a start. The most recent move
towards supporting such a process is the creation of the
Peacebuilding Commission put forth in the World Summit 2005 document,
"The main purpose of the Peacebuilding Commission is to bring
together all relevant actors to marshal resources and to advise on
and propose integrated strategies for post-conflict Peacebuilding
recovery".
The World Summit document advises that the Peacebuilding Commission
be in operation by December 31 2005.
When
peace agreements fail the blame is placed on the United Nations.
Striving for peace has its inherent pitfalls. The nations of the
world must share the blame yet world leaders stop short and allow the
failure to rest on the institution that is only allowed to do what
its members are willing to let it do, or not do.
"Emphasizing
the need for a coordinated, coherent and integrated approach to
post-conflict peacebuilding with a view to achieve sustainable
peace"
The idea to have such a capacity will allow for a clear sense of
what to expect when a conflict arises. In the past the efforts of
the world have been unfocused and patch worked.
The
final stage of negotiated governance is the formation of a peaceful
nation. The goal is to live peacefully aside others. Identity of
groups will always seek similarities and those that do not fit will
be tolerated less. This is life. This is the reason we need
processes such as negotiated governance, peacbuilding commissions and
the 3D concept.
The
reintegration of both refugees and others that were for whatever
reason on the other side of the conflict, challenges a person. When
your ideas are challenged conflict can arise, the same for politics.
Political ideas are challenge on the manner in how to run the nation.
As we have seen these conflicts turn into violence. "Fortunately,
it is possible for horizons of understanding to be broadened by
experience."
It is the experiences that will prove most useful as the process of
negotiations is further developed.
The
example of Yugoslavia is important. The Olympic games were held in
Sarajevo and the city celebrated its ethnic diversity. The world
watched the games and the nation stood proud that such a
multicultural world could be so grand. Within a few short years that
same city held memorials for 22 people shot dead while they stood in
line for a loaf of bread in the city square by a sniper. The bridge
in Mostar, a symbol of the rich history that has graced the country
destroyed. The events were shocking and the fragile peace that makes
up society became more evident.
Today
the country is no more. It has split up yet the process of peace
allows the violence to be dealt with. The healing process takes a
while. As mentioned above there are process of truth and
reconciliation, criminal courts and a multitude of NGO's that work to
heal the damage done by violent conflicts. All these initiatives are
part of a process to attain the societies we choose to live in. The
same process that leads to the downward spiral can lead to peaceful
societies.
Having
cultures integrate and live together is the root cause of the
Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Without a respected and clear process
to allow the two societies to live beside eachother the situation
will have dire consequences. There needs to be tolerance and
understanding that the process of living together will enrich
eachothers lives not hinder it.
In
Israel the political situation has gone through some very interesting
times. The President of Israel, Ariel Sharon has lead his country
through many confidence votes and attempts to have him thrown out of
office. All for the reason that he is trying to make the two states
of Israel and Palestine live in a cohesive environment. Peace is not
easy and sometimes it even looks as though it is unpopular. The
efforts of Ariel Sharon have also put up walls between the two
people. The entire situation runs from extremes to the other extreme
and in the middle are people that would like nothing more than to
live in peace.
The
building of the wall in Israel was quite an event. Then the images
of Israel forcing its own people out of homes, so that the
Palestinians can have the land they claim as theirs made the conflict
even deeper. This process brought to light a different conflict that
was
not
seen before. Israelis were burning down the homes and destroying
business all in an attempt to express the hatred felt between the
two. This is a clear indication of people fighting the problem.
If
for instance the world stood up and put the political will behind the
peace effort the problem of Israel and Palestine could have been
solved quite some time ago. Briefly lets take the Israeli/Palestine
conflict through a negotiated governance.
First
step would be to enforce a cease fire. A large force of military
troops take up residence. Both sides are put through a disarmament
process to ensure that peace will be maintained. In order to sustain
the peace both leaders will have a say in where the troops are
deployed and for what purpose. As this process is unfolding the
military collects information on the situation and reports back to
the Security Council and the leaders of both states.
The
soldiers that made up the military of both states go through a
reorientation process for the purpose of reintegration at a later
date. The citizens meanwhile are working on building the
infrastructure of the communities and begin the first steps towards a
healing process. At the negotiation table election dates are agreed
upon, boundaries discussed, and the formulation for dealing with any
unforeseen acts of aggression that may take place.
As
the process unfolds the peacekeepers are working with local residence
to build systems that will will allow them to live peacefully. NGO's
are present to assist with the healing process and education. The
further on the process moves the possibility for election nears.
The
formulation of constitutions and legal agreements that spell out the
process for future interaction when violence does occur are released.
Given the reaction to these set of developments will indicate the
need for a removal of military forces. These forces will be replaced
with the former soldiers that have succeeded in the reorientation
process.
The
final stage will be the complete and total removal of all foreign
troops and the signing of formalized relations to live productively
side by side with the understanding that if such a situation ever
presents itself that threatens the peace the process to deal is
spelled out in the document signed.
Good
luck!
Bibliography
Cooper, Andrew F.
Tests of Global Governance. United Nations University Press, Tokyo.
2004
Diehl, Paul F.
International Peacekeeping. John Hopkins University Press. 1993.
Dunlop, Brendan.
A Psychogeographic Map of Halifax. Free Coffee, Halifax. 2005.
Galtung, Johan.
Peace by Peaceful Means. Sage Publications, London. 1996.
Gumbleton, Thomas
J. The role of the Peacemaker: War or Peace. Editied by Thomas A.
Shannon. Orbis Books, New York. 1982.
Haring, Bernard.
The Healing Power of Peace and Nonviolence. Paulist Press, New York.
1986.
Kelman, Herbert.
Social-Psycological Dimensions of International Conflict: Peacemaking
in International Conflicts. Edited by I. William Zartman and J.
Lewis Rasmussen. United States Institute for Peace Press. 1997
Lansing, Robert.
The Peace Negotiations. Kennikat Press, Port Washington. 1921.
Long, Edward Leroy
Jr. Peace Thinking in a Warring World. The Westminster Press,
Philadelphia. 1983.
Macnamara, Don W.
Haiti - an Opportunity for Canada to Apply the 3D Concept, Policy
Options. Feb 2005, vol. 26 no, 02, pg, 63.
Morrison, Alex,
Dale Anderson. Peacekeeping and the Coming Anarchy. Canadian
Peacekeeping Press, Cornwallis. 1996
