Conflict Termination

Trends, challenges (new approaches?)

National Defense College of the Philippines, 14 April 2011

Overview

• 1. Conciliation Resources • 2. Conflict termination• 3. Trends• 4. Challenge• (5. Approaches)

2

Conciliation Resources

• Background• Approach• Areas of engagement:

1. Supporting peace processes (geographic areas)

2. Documenting best practice (Accord)3. Policy

3

Protracted armed conflicts

• Some 20 armed conflicts/tensions have lasted more than 20 years.

• Limited media coverage.• Most cases take place in “democratic”

contexts.• Complexity increases with time: new

actors, new factors, increased grievances, culture of violence.

4

Protracted peace processes

• Six negotiations started more than 20 years ago: NPA (23), Colombia (25), Cyprus (32), Spain (38), Nagaland (49), Kashmir (50).

• Oldest terminated conflicts: MNLF (21), Northern Ireland (25), Sri Lanka (26), Burundi (29).

5

Conflict “termination”

• Peace agreement: 11 (>85 %)• Victory/defeat: 2 (Peru, Sri Lanka)• Comprehensive negotiations also take

place with militarily ‘weak’ rebel groups: URNG (Guatemala), GAM (Aceh).

• One of the strongest rebel movements in the world (LTTE) was defeated (2009).

6

From bullets to ballots

• 75% of rebels turned political parties access government:South Africa (1994), Mindanao (1996), East Timor (2002), Aceh (2006), Northern Ireland (2007) Guatemala (2007), Nepal (2008), El Salvador (2009).

• Access to power most often happened shortly after the final peace agreement.

• It took longer time in Northern Ireland (9 years), Guatemala (11 years), and El Salvador (18 years).

7

Trends: the ‘good’ news

• Less armed conflicts• Less battle deaths• COIN unsuccessful (Rand)• More negotiated terminations• Negotiations in most current conflicts• Better peace-support capacities• Less acceptance of violence: – less support to rebels (LTTE, ETA, FARC)– more peace support.

8

Trends: the bad news

• Conflicts & peace process become protracted• Post-agreement violence• Conflict recurrence• New forms of violence• Resilience of power-holders• September 11: more asymmetry• Time now favors status quo (Palestine, WS)• Poor quality of peace agreements• Failed expectations

9

Challenge

From quantity to quality of peace processes

10

1. Re-assess assumptions

• Peace will be brokered by warriors• ‘Strong’ rebels can’t be defeated• ‘Weak’ rebels don’t have political power• Peace is made around one table• A peace agreement will bring peace • Spoilers will always put obstacles• People are doomed to be violent

11

2. Welcome innovations

• “6 paths to peace” (1993)• Peace zones• Civilian peacekeeping (local and intnal.)• Early peace dividends: BDA• Capacity building to balance asymmetry:

BMIL• Sophisticated peace-support architecture:

ICG, IMT• All-women contingent (CPC)• Military - peace

12

3. New concepts and methods

• Violence continuum: public-private• Peace process - peace negotiations• Manage expectations: increase time-frame• Victims: from objects to subjects• Explore stakeholder ‘cocktails’.

13

4. Accept complexity

• Multiple situations overlap (conflict/post-)• Same factors produce different outcome at

different moments• Intuition over analysis• Identify and address the multiple layers of

conflict. • Challenges are both global and context-

specific: mutual learning

14

5. Broaden perspectives

• From stopping violence to challenging violence:– Unmask the interests that justify violence

(economic and political dimensions).– Transform the structures that sustain

violence (institutional dimension).– De-construct the myths that foster violence

(cultural dimension).

15

6. Women’s contributions

• From linear processes to circular metaphors• Challenging binary considerations:

– Good and bad – shared responsibilities– War and peace - violence continuum – Men and women – gendered roles

• From amnesty to accountability.• From elite-driven negotiations to inclusive

peace processes.• From W. liberal values and neo-colonial

attitudes to acknowledgement of local and indigenous capacities.

16