osloFORUM

The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015

A Compendium of Oslo Forum Interviews The Oslo Forum of armedconflict Improving themediation insights by those working at the highest level to bring to level highest the at working those by insights Forum seriesfacilitateafrank andopenexchangeof The uniquely informal and discreet retreats of the Oslo and support. lessons inspiration, for experiences particular own their beyond looking from benefit mediators conflict, violent to solutions negotiated sustainable about for reflection. Given the immense challenges in bringing environment of mediation rarely provides opportunities field of international diplomacy. The pressured working actors involved testifies to its emergence as a distinct resolving armed conflicts and the growing number of Mediation is increasingly seen as an effective means of Sharing experiencesandinsights conflict partiestoadvancetheirnegotiations. and cooperation when needed, and allowing space for networking opportunities that encouragecoordination institutional and conceptual divides, providing informal through facilitating open exchange and reflection across Asia. The aim is to improve conflict mediation practice and is complemented by regional retreats in Africa and The Oslo Forum features an annual global event in Oslo actors inaseriesofinformalanddiscreet retreats. process peace key and decision-makers level high peacemakers, mediators, conflict convenes regularly Forum Oslo the ForeignAffairs, of Ministry Norwegian Royal the and (HD) Dialogue Humanitarian for Centre the by Co-hosted practitioners. mediation conflict of network The OsloForumistheleadinginternational A globalseriesofmediationretreats h rtet rfan rm aig public making mediation practice. from refrain conflict advance to recommendations,instead aiming retreats The Prize laureates. Peace Nobel several hosted have to proud is Forum Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. The Oslo Adams, President of Sinn Féin, and former President of the Islamic Republic of Iran; ; of President former Africa; South of President Finland; of President former Colombia; of President Santos, Nations and the League of Arab States; United the of for Representative Special Joint oenet, s el s rvt ognstos and organisations private as well as governments, and organisations regional Nations, United the from actors key convening By together. parties warring for Democracy in ; San Suu Kyi, General Secretary of the National League States; United the of President former Carter, Nations; United the of Secretary-General former Annan, Participants haveincludedKofi analysts, thinkersandexpertsonspecificissues. party representatives, war correspondents, outstanding conflict including speakers, different of range a from stimulate informedexchangeswithprovocative inputs House Rule of non-attribution. Sessions are designed to of closed-door discussions, and adhere to the Chatham Participation is by invitation only. Sessions take the form Where politicsmeetspractice unique networkingopportunity. a provide also retreats the peacemakers, prominent Lakhdar Brahimi, former , Mohammad lsgn Obasanjo, Olusegun , former Mbeki, Thabo ati Ahtisaari, Martti Fatou Bensouda, Juan Manuel Jimmy Gerry Aung

osloFORUM

The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015

A Compendium of Oslo Forum Interviews Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs 114, rue de Lausanne 7. Juni-plassen/Victoria Terrasse 1202 Geneva | Switzerland PB 8114 Dep. N-0032 Oslo | Norway [email protected] [email protected] t: +41 22 908 11 30 t:+47 23 95 00 00 f: +41 22 908 11 40 f:+47 23 95 00 99 www.hdcentre.org www.government.no/mfa

Oslo Forum www.osloforum.org

The Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (HD) is a private diplomacy organisation founded on the principles of humanity, impartiality and independence. Its mission is to help prevent, mitigate, and resolve armed conflict through dialogue and mediation.

Disclaimer: The following interviews were conducted specifically for Oslo Forum retreats and reflect events of the time. They do not necessarily represent the views of the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue or the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Editors: Katia Papagianni, Paul Dziatkowiec, Christina Buchhold, Elodie Convergne Contents Foreword Conflict and peacemaking trends Negotiating with the enemy Preserving the peacemaking space

6 Foreword David Harland

8 Conflict and peacemaking trends (2015) Paul Collier, Jean-Marie Guéhenno, David Harland, Mary Kaldor, Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini and Steven Pinker

14 Negotiating with the enemy (2014) New voices on peacemaking The Irish Republican Army (IRA), the (KNU) and the

South Democratic Movement/Army (SSDM/A) – Cobra faction Life as a mediator and peace process actor

18 Preserving the peacemaking space (2013) Mark Bowden, Lakhdar Brahimi, , Alastair Crooke, Elisabeth Decrey Warner, Jon Hanssen-Bauer and David Harland

28 New voices on peacemaking (2012) Fiona Lortan, David Mozersky, Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini and Theerada Suphaphong

34 Life as a mediator and a peace process actor (2011) Ashraf Ghani, Haile Menkerios, George Mitchell, Joyce Neu and Kieran Prendergast, with comments and reflections from Mohagher Iqbal and Neles Tebay On being a peacemaker

44 On being a peacemaker (2010) Said Djinnit, Graça Machel and Hassan Wirajuda 6 Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015 Foreword

Since 2003, the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue the opposing side change their understanding of (HD) and the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign the issues and possible solutions? These and other Affairs convene the Oslo Forum, an informal questions invite readers to see peace processes and discreet retreat for conflict mediators, through the lens of those who are negotiating with peacemakers, high level decision-makers and key the enemy.

Foreword peace process actors. In 2013 Mark Bowden, Lakhdar Brahimi, Jimmy What started out as a small retreat with only a handful Carter, Alastair Crooke, Elisabeth Decrey Warner, of mediators has developed into an annual gathering Jon Hanssen-Bauer and I were asked to discuss the widely regarded as the leading international network impact of recent international legal developments in the field. The Oslo Forum provides informal on the practice of peacemaking. Have post-9/11 networking opportunities that encourage experience legal developments made it harder to talk to sharing and cooperation, and allows space for conflict proscribed groups and alleged war criminals? How parties to advance their negotiations. should conflict mediators strike the right balance between bringing armed groups to the peace Since 2010 we have asked mediators, thinkers and table, and heeding international criminal justice peace process actors to reflect on their work or share standards and counter-terrorism provisions? their views on a current theme within the framework of This group of distinguished peacemakers and the Oslo Forum Interview. Each year these interviews humanitarian actors draws on years of practical have been distributed with other background material experience to provide advice on how to preserve prepared exclusively for participants of the Oslo the peacemaking space. Forum. This publication gathers the Oslo Forum Interviews for the first time and makes them available In 2012 we invited a new generation of peacemakers to a wider audience. to the table. How do upcoming mediators enter this line of work? What challenges do they face in The interviews provide a collage of views from our Oslo establishing themselves? How can their contribution Forum network. Through their frank replies, interviewees enrich a field that has been slow to include women offer intimate insight into the ups and downs of their and youth? Fiona Lortan, David Mozersky, Sanam daily work and invite their peers and readers to discuss Naraghi-Anderlini and Theerada Suphaphong provide the current issues in the field of peacemaking. new voices on peacemaking.

The compilation starts off with a 2015 reflection The 2011 interview was an occasion to ask senior on conflict and peacemaking trends. Paul peacemakers more personal questions on life as Collier, Jean-Marie Guéhenno, Mary Kaldor, Sanam a mediator and a peace process actor. Ashraf Naraghi-Anderlini, Steven Pinker and I discuss how Ghani, Haile Menkerios, George Mitchell, Joyce Neu the nature of conflicts has changed over the past ten and Kieran Prendergast reflect on who inspired them, years and how the peacemaking field has evolved their career milestones, the mistakes they made, in response. We also offer advice on how mediators the practice of mediation and how it has evolved. can develop the necessary tools to face a rapidly Mohagher Iqbal and Neles Tebay contribute to the changing conflict landscape. discussion from the perspective of local peace process actors. The 2014 interview invited former and current members of armed resistance groups, including Similarly, Said Djinnit, Graça Machel and Hassan representatives of the Irish Republican Army (IRA), Wirajuda share intimate reflections on being a the Karen National Union (KNU) and the South Sudan peacemaker in the 2010 interview. As they look back Democratic Movement/Army (SSDM/A) – Cobra at their careers, we learn about what drives them, their faction to reflect on their engagement in peace views of the mediation field and where it is headed, the processes. What made them decide to get involved pitfalls to be avoided, the evolution of their mediation in negotiations? How do they deal with spoilers style over the years, and how being a mediator has within their own group? Did their discussion with changed their worldview. Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015 7 Foreword

I would like to express my gratitude to all these contributors who have been kind enough to share their insights and wisdom, as well as for their ongoing contributions to the Oslo Forum community and the mediation field in general. As we look forward to the next Oslo Forum in June 2016, let us use the time ahead to put their insights and collective expertise to practical use in the pursuit of peace.

David Harland Executive Director, Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue 8 Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015 Conflict and peacemaking trends

A frank conversation with Paul Collier, Jean-Marie Guéhenno, David Harland, Mary Kaldor, Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini and Steven Pinker 2015 Conflict and peacemaking trends

Paul Collier Jean-Marie Guéhenno David Harland Sir Paul Collier is Professor of Economics Jean-Marie Guéhenno is the President David Harland is the Executive and Public Policy at the Blavatnik School of of the International Crisis Group and Director of the Centre for Government, Director of the International a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Humanitarian Dialogue. He previously Growth Centre and Co-Director of the Brookings Institution. A former French served as Director of the Europe Centre for the Study of African Economies, diplomat, he also served as the Arnold and Latin America Division at the University of Oxford. From 1998 to 2003 he Saltzman Professor of Professional UN Department of Peacekeeping was Director of the World Bank’s Research Practice at Columbia University and as Operations (2007–2010) and Acting Development Department. He is currently Director of its Centre for International Deputy Special Representative of the adviser to the International Monetary Fund, Conflict Resolution. In 2012, he was Secretary-General in (2010), the World Bank and the UK Department appointed Deputy Joint Special Envoy in Pristina (2008) and in East Timor for International Development (DFID). of the and the Arab (1999–2000). He also held the position His research covers the causes and League for Syria. Between 2000 of Political Adviser to the Commander consequences of civil war, the effects of and 2008, he served as the United of the UN Protection Force and Head aid, and the problems of democracy in low- Nations Under-Secretary-General for of Civil Affairs for the UN in Bosnia income and natural-resources rich societies. Peacekeeping Operations. and Herzegovina (1993–1998). Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015 9 Conflict and peacemaking trends Mary Kaldor Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini Steven Pinker Mary Kaldor is Professor of Global Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini is co-founder Steven Pinker is Johnstone Family Governance and Director of the Civil of the International Civil Society Action Professor of Psychology at Harvard Society and Human Security Research Network, and served as the first Gender University. He has also taught Unit at the London School of Economics, and Inclusion Adviser on the UN Mediation at Stanford University and the and CEO of the DFID-funded Justice and Standby Team. In 2000, she was among Massachusetts Institute of Technology Security Research Programme. She is the civil society leaders and drafters of (MIT). His research on visual cognition the author of several books, including UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on and the psychology of language has The Ultimate Weapon is No Weapon: women, peace and security. She is the 2016 won prizes from the National Academy Human Security and the Changing Rules Greeley Peace Scholar at the University of of Sciences, the Royal Institution of War and Peace; New and Old Wars: Massachusetts, Lowell, and was the 2015 of Great Britain, the Cognitive Organised Violence in a Global Era; and Perdita Huston Human Rights Awardee Neuroscience Society and the Global Civil Society: An Answer to War. of Washington DC’s UN Association. She American Psychological Association. Professor Kaldor was co-chair of the serves as an advisor for Global Learning He is the author of ten books, including Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly and convenor and the High Level Panel on the Post-2015 The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why of the Human Security Study Group. Development Agenda. Violence Has Declined.

How have conflicts changed over the last 10–20 years? And how has peacemaking changed during that period?

Steven Pinker: The last few years have seen a small accessible to the population at large, without the need reversal of the trend of the preceding two decades for elaborate organisational structures. To respond to when war went into steep decline. The year 2010 these new challenges, peacemaking also has to be, in saw an uptick in the numbers of wars and war deaths a sense, messy and multileveled. (largely because of the ), which wiped out the preceding dozen years of progress. Still, the Mary Kaldor: We used to think that conflicts are world is nowhere near the level of wars that it endured contests of wills, in which each side is trying to gain from 1950 to the mid-1990s. The main changes are something. But increasingly, contemporary conflicts are that most of the new wars involve radical Islamic jihadist more like mutual enterprises, in which the parties gain forces – 7 of the 11 ongoing wars, according to the from fighting rather than winning. Politically, they gain estimates that Andrew Mack and I used in a recent from engaging in exclusive identity politics (for example, article. Sunni versus Shia, Serb versus Croat), which feed on fear and hatred. Economically, the warring parties can David Harland: War was in dramatic decline between make money through fighting, whether from looting and 1995 and 2010. Since 2010 it has come roaring back. pillage, support by outsiders, or smuggling drugs, oil There are multiple reasons for this. One of them is the or antiquities. Therefore, contemporary conflict is more continuing shift of power from the state to the individual a social condition than a political conflict. If conflict is – enabled by social media and other technologies. War a mutual enterprise, then a peace agreement tends is in some ways becoming messier. We have seen a to work only if the parties continue their predatory return of geopolitical tensions after almost 20 years activities. Therefore, peace agreements can represent of the so called ‘end of history’, and now we also a legitimisation by the international community of have conflict driven or enabled by technology that is criminalised extremist networks. Dayton is a perfect 10 Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015

example: it certainly brought stability to Bosnia but, 20 mediation and sometimes even disarmament. But years later, Bosnia remains as divided and fearful as they are rarely recognised or supported. The challenge ever. The international community has much greater for peacemaking is to evolve to address increasing involvement in the implementation of peace agreements, complexities and to include non-state unarmed actors with the deployment of peacekeeping troops, in peace processes. development agencies and so on. These elements of the ‘liberal peace complex’ have Paul Collier: Over the longer undoubtedly stabilised many term the world is getting more conflicts, especially in Africa. peaceful, but clearly not at the While this represents something moment. Peacemaking is proving better than a continuing social impotent against both radical condition, it clearly has its Islam (for example, in the Middle limits in the current climate of Increasingly, contemporary East) and ethnic hatreds (such as increasing conflict – particularly in South Sudan). in the Middle East, where the conflicts are more like great powers are unable to Jean-Marie Guéhenno: Michael agree on a common approach. mutual enterprises, in Howard wrote a wonderful little which the parties gain book almost 40 years ago, War Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini: In in European History, arguing that essence, conflicts have become from fighting rather wars are always a reflection of much more complicated: more a society – from the knights of internal and transnational, and than winning. the Middle Ages to the industrial with a more diverse range wars of the last century. Today’s

Conflict and peacemaking trends of actors. The 1990s saw wars reflect a world in which an increase in civil wars, but nation states are challenged, conflicts have now metastasised. and political battles have lost As soon as chaos spreads, their centrality. With the collapse a range of transnational non-state actors as well as of the Soviet empire, it was not just the communist regional and international proxy actors enter the space. ideology that came crashing down but also belief in any I call this a proliferation of actors and a democratisation political programme. The collective dimension of human of violence. However, we also see the emergence of destiny has not disappeared, but it expresses itself non-state unarmed actors taking a stance for peace. in new ways: ethnicity, religion, … Today’s In Syria, Pakistan, or , for example, conflicts are more amorphous and fluid than ten years local communities and organisations are first to provide ago: often not contained within the borders of a state, relief and assistance. International agencies are often and often with a criminal dimension, as the separation dependent on them to access communities. Often it between crime and politics is eroded. is women who are picking up the pieces, doing local

What will wars be fought about in the next 10–20 years?

Jean-Marie Guéhenno: I think the wars of tomorrow Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini: What we are seeing at the are likely to be fought over identities. A deep and moment is the rise of identity as a means of mobilising growing sense of injustice in many parts of the world, people. While the world now is the most pluralised ever, including in our own societies, will often be the trigger, there are also forces trying to label us and compel us to but in a mobile and connected world, conflicts born identify with one subset or subcategory. This threatens out of local grievances will not remain local. They will social cohesion everywhere. But, at their core, the connect with broader identity-based movements, conflicts of the present and future are about a mix of through virtual communities and transnational issues: demand for dignity, social justice, access to organisations. resources. We may see an escalation of conflicts over natural resources but that would be mainly a result of Paul Collier: Clashes of identity. poor governance and corruption. If states don’t value and invest in their primary ‘natural resource’ – their David Harland: The old drivers will still be there, people – then finite natural resources become a catalyst including power and identity. What will change is for conflict. what wars are possible. The world is going through a fundamental technological change that will allow pre- Steven Pinker: Despite a common prophesy, I think existing grievances to be expressed as never before. there’s very little reason to believe that wars will be Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015 11 fought over resources like oil, water and minerals. attempt to get even with states who had previously Physical resources can be divided and shared at lower made successful territorial grabs’. I see no reason why cost than fighting over them. this will change. Not so for sacred homelands, or rectifying historic injustices, Mary Kaldor: If you don’t see or fear of attack, or establishing war as contests of wills but more a Caliphate, or re-establishing as a kind of mutual enterprise, the grandeur of a once-proud The wars of tomorrow there is a real risk that this sort empire. As Richard Ned Lebow of societal condition, which put it in his systematic analysis: are likely to be fought we see in Libya or Syria, may ‘Four generic motives have spread through populations of historically led states to initiate over identities. refugees and displaced people war: fear, interest, standing or through the transnational Conflict and peacemaking trends and revenge... Contrary to smuggling networks that are conventional wisdom, only a such a feature of contemporary minority of these were motivated conflict. It is quite frightening by security or material interest. Instead, the majority are how quickly this condition can spread and worsen, as the result of a quest for standing, and for revenge – an it may yet do in eastern Ukraine.

Where will wars take place? Who will be the main conflict and peacemaking actors?

David Harland: For the last 20–25 years, war has Jean-Marie Guéhenno: There are some common mapped very closely to extreme poverty. If you could characteristics, but different forces are at play in different identify a place that was extremely poor, you could spot parts of the world. In Asia, the combination of nationalism a vulnerability to conflict. Now that is much less true. and conflicting claims over maritime areas, and the From Libya to Ukraine, we see a wave of conflicts in scarcity of resources, especially water, could be a trigger. middle-income countries and there is no reason to think In Africa, the fading legitimacy of the decolonisation this will stop soon. In terms of war and peace actors: period, and demographic transition, will put enormous just as conflicts will include geostrategic elements, pressure on the structures of many states. In the former state elements, organised non-state elements Ottoman and Soviet empires, it may take a generation and unorganised popular participation, so too will before a new legitimate order consolidates itself. Lastly, peacemaking responses, if they are to be effective, as the world becomes ever more urban, more conflicts largely have to reflect these elements. or quasi-conflicts will take place in cities, as we have seen with the criminal gangs of Latin America. Mary Kaldor: Unless we develop alternative approaches, I think we will see the types of conflicts Paul Collier: Small, poor countries where the government we have seen over the last ten years spreading lacks the capacity to impose security. in the Middle East or large parts of Africa – and maybe in Europe, depending on how the EU deals Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini: At the micro level – in with the Greek and Ukrainian crises. The most homes, communities, towns and cities. If we do not important peacemakers are local people who care put the question of human dignity at the centre of our about the future of their communities as a whole. development, peace and security policies, we enter Peace depends on local buy-in, but also on global very dangerous terrain. We have seen the rise of absurd links with international organisations, like the United levels of inequality and corruption. We see young people, Nations, the European Union or the African Union. especially men, facing images of ridiculous levels of The role of those organisations, in turn, depends on wealth and increasing expectations, yet nothing in their the policies of states towards them. It is a matter of lives enables them to meet these expectations. If we politics, and of whether governments and societies leave a vacuum, somebody else will fill it by tapping into are willing to get together to become conflict and their aspirations and grievances, by giving them a vision peacemaking actors. for the future, a sense of belonging to a bigger cause. I would say that future conflict could occur wherever Steven Pinker: No one knows for sure. But probably these factors are at play. In some places we see the a majority of them will continue to be in the Islamic rise of extremist groups using the banner of religion. crescent, from West Africa to , and will But they have a great deal in common with gangs and involve Jihadist and radical Islamic forces. A few may organised crime groups that are active in Central America come from Putin stoking his ego. or extreme right wing groups in Europe and the US. 12 Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015

Do you envisage that radically new ways will be developed to respond to future conflicts? Will we need new tools?

Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini: I certainly hope so. The from interventions in the past. It will have to involve problems have evolved but our state-based institutional a large number of what I would call human security responses have been very slow to adapt. I think it is officers (global emergency services with a range of skills critical for us to analyse what works and what needs to necessary for protection and stabilisation including military be adjusted or reorganised. This will require collaborating and policing skills but also humanitarian, health and in a space of mutual respect across government, mediation expertise). Despite international learning over civil society and multinational institutions. We each the last 10–20 years, two major obstacles remain. One have different comparative is that we are always stuck with advantages and limitations and top-down peace agreements we should work together to which make it very difficult to address these new problems. develop long-term peace. The second obstacle is the war on Paul Collier: We will need The most important terror, meaning that we go after much more effective ways of particular groups and focus on interrupting conflicts in their peacemakers are local defeating possible threats to early stages, and much more Western society, rather than on effective international support people who care about the protecting the population. for regional military forces. future of their communities. Jean-Marie Guéhenno: As

Conflict and peacemaking trends David Harland: We certainly conflicts become more fluid, need new tools. We face a conflict resolution strategies growing problem, and the tools will need to address their we have aren’t adequate. It is accompanying fragmentation. a game of catch-up. In Kenya in 2008 and in The challenge will not be to reconcile structured 2014, we saw the multilevel responses to conflict that political movements competing for power, but rather will be needed. to ensure that there are centres of power in a position to take charge. This will be hard in a world where the Mary Kaldor: Yes, to solve these problems we will need sources of legitimacy are being redefined. radically new ways. At the moment, one of the current fault lines is exemplified by the migration crisis in the Steven Pinker: It’s always hard to make predictions Mediterranean and events in Libya. I think there will have about anything radically new – the safest predictions to be an international intervention in Libya, very different involve cautious extrapolations from the present.

Will the role of the nation state as the primary actor in international relations diminish?

Paul Collier: No, I don’t think so. state has been permanently swallowed by conquest, though occasionally states have divided into smaller David Harland: People have been saying that the nation states. But increasingly it’s been non-state Westphalian system is breaking down since the ink actors that have caused trouble – almost all wars was wet on the treaty of Westphalia. And of course today are civil wars, and the non-state forces will have we always had significant actors on the international to be brought into negotiations if the world is to see scene that were not nation states: the British East India greater peace. We can also expect to see more power- Company, the Pope, and many others. Most likely, the sharing, devolution and regions with a special status: state will continue to be an important point of reference, states will maintain control over defence, borders and but, as at key moments in the past, there will be other currencies, but will sacrifice some effective control in enormously powerful actors there as well. One of them, exchange for not enduring endless separatist wars or I think, will be the people themselves. terrorist campaigns.

Steven Pinker: States will continue to be the primary Jean-Marie Guéhenno: People want nation but not the only actors. The world’s surface is still states that can protect them and provide ultimate exhaustively divided into nation-states, virtually all of reassurance. But nation states are struggling, and their which are officially certified by the UN, internationally role as the building blocks of an international order recognised, and effectively immortal – since 1945, no will be increasingly challenged as they find themselves Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015 13 incapable of controlling what happens in their territory, and their nation more seriously. If the state is providing let alone on their borders. safety, basic services, an effective justice system and a police force that is genuinely protective, then people’s Mary Kaldor: If this kind of new approach to peace faith in those states will increase. But if states or (see previous response) is adopted: yes, the role of the leaders are predatory or irresponsible, then people look nation state will diminish. If it doesn’t, I can envisage a elsewhere for the safety and services they need, and the worsening of conflict and perhaps a return to the old role of the state is diminished. One way of preventing kind of conflict in which the nation state has always this is to strengthen relations between state and civil been the key actor. society. Civil society does not exist to undermine a state, but to improve it and hold it accountable to its Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini: I think it depends on citizenry. Shutting down civil society shuts down dissent whether the nation state and the power-holders are in the moderate spaces; the dissent then emerges in willing to take their responsibility towards their citizens the extreme spaces that may be harder to access. Conflict and peacemaking trends

What advice would you offer the peacemakers of tomorrow?

Jean-Marie Guéhenno: Study anthropology! And try to a lag in matching peacemaking tools to the changing understand what new political institutions will emerge in nature of armed conflict. Given the pace of change the less territorial, deeply individualistic, and yet profoundly – technological, political and social – peacemakers conformist world that is in the making. The peacemakers need to get better at anticipating those changes, and of tomorrow won’t have the comfortable references of at adapting. today to build upon. Mary Kaldor: Try to understand the micro-dynamics of Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini: I hope the peacemakers conflicts. Contemporary conflicts, as societal conditions, of tomorrow represent and reflect the true diversity of are hugely fragmented. In Syria, for example, some areas peacemakers in the world today. I would like to see them are quite peaceful, and different actors are involved in have empathy for those affected by war, and respect each area. To make peace involves a very ambitious for local civil society actors who bottom-up process that have had the courage to stand reflects the fragmented nature up and speak out for peace. of contemporary war. There Tomorrow’s peacemakers need are always ‘islands of civility’ to be cognisant of conceptual in conflicts where local actors developments in peacemaking, mediate and sustain peace. and of the importance of outreach Afghanistan is not going We need to start by building up and inclusivity. They have to be those islands rather than seeking humble enough to adapt and to become Denmark top-down solutions. build on the context they are any time soon, so the working in, without necessarily Steven Pinker: Peacekeeping, imposing standard models. international community policing, and responsibility-to- Often the leadership, envoys and protect duties cannot be fobbed mediators are misinformed about should not try to set off onto the United States. new normative frameworks, for With no coherent mandate, example UN Resolution 1325. Danish-style standards. capricious domestic support, They think this represents political partisan politicisation of correctness and is theoretical individual cases, an inscrutable or ‘Western’. Too many don’t mixture of altruism and self- understand that these norms interest, and the distrust or have emerged from pragmatic realities of warfare – hatred of much of the world, the US is poorly equipped because women demanded a voice in peace processes to fill that role. And yet the role needs to be filled. We as they had a critical contribution to make. Tomorrow’s need a beefed-up UN peacekeeping force, and a more peacemakers must be flexible, and committed to systematic and coherent basis for deploying the forces upholding human rights for women and men. They must of other treaty organisations and coalitions of the willing. understand the history and evolution of norms, and build and adapt them, instead of constantly questioning or, Paul Collier: Do not navigate from grand ideals; worse, undermining them. work for feasible improvements. Afghanistan is not going to become Denmark any time soon, so the David Harland: Peacemakers, even more than international community should not try to set Danish- generals, prepare for the last campaign. Already we see style standards. 14 Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015 Negotiating with the enemy

A frank conversation with former and current members of armed resistance groups: the Irish Republican Army (IRA), the Karen National Union (KNU) and the South Sudan Democratic Movement/Army (SSDM/A) – Cobra faction 2014

South Sudan Democratic Movement/ Irish Republican Army (IRA) Karen National Union (KNU) Army (SSDM/A) – Cobra faction Negotiating with the enemy The Irish Republican Army was a The Karen National Union is a The SSDM/A is a militant group leading an paramilitary organization seeking the Burmese political organization with armed rebellion against the Government of end of British rule in Northern Ireland, a military branch, the Karen National South Sudan of President Salva Kiir and the the reunification of Ireland and the Liberation Army, and Myanmar’s Sudan People’s Liberation Movement. The establishment of a republic. It was oldest armed ethnic group. It seeks Cobra faction’s grievances pertain to the involved in an armed campaign against the establishment of a Karen State political marginalization of the Murle people in the ‘Loyalist’ groups in favour of within a Federal Union, and fights the Pibor County, Jonglei, the underdevelopment British rule, the British military and the central government through a guerrilla of the region, and the lack of power-sharing Northern Irish police forces. The 1998 war in the region bordering . with the local government in Bor. It calls for Good Friday Agreement between the It became in 2010 the member of a federal system. The SSDM/A – Cobra United Kingdom and Ireland provided an alliance with other armed ethnic faction signed in 2014 a peace agreement for the IRA’s decommissioning and the groups. The KNU signed in 2012 a establishing the semi-autonomous establishment of a new power-sharing truce with the Myanmar Government, Greater Pibor Administrative Area, and government in Northern Ireland. The and in 2015 the Nationwide Ceasefire in 2015 an accord with South Sudan’s group announced in 2005 the end of Agreement, together with seven other National Disarmament, Demobilization and its military operations1. armed groups2. Reintegration Commission3.

1. Gregory, Kathryn. “Backgrounder: Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA)”. Council on Foreign Relations (16 March 2010), available at: http://www.cfr.org/ separatist-terrorism/provisional-irish-republican-army-ira-aka-pira-provos-oglaigh-na-heireann-uk-separatists/p9240; Cowell-Meyers, Kimberly. “Irish Republican Army (IRA)”. Encyclopædia Britannica (24 November 2015), available at: http://www.britannica.com/topic/Irish-Republican-Army. 2. South, Ashley. Burma’s Longest War: Anatomy of the Karen Conflict. Amsterdam: Transnational Institute/Burma Center Netherlands (2011), available at: https:// www.tni.org/files/download/Burma%27s%20Longest%20War.pdf; “Karen National Union (KNU), Karen National Defense Organization (KNDO), Democratic Karen Burmese Army (DKBA)”. GlobalSecurity.org (9 March 2014), available at: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/karen.htm; http://www. karennationalunion.net/ (accessed 13 January 2016); http://www.knuhq.org/language/en_gb/ (accessed 13 January 2016). 3. Small Arms Survey. “SSDM/A-Cobra faction”. The Human Security Baseline Assessment (HSBA) for Sudan and South Sudan (6 November 2013), available at: http://www.smallarmssurveysudan.org/de/facts-figures/south-sudan/armed-groups/southern-dissident-militias/ssdma-cobra-faction.html; Todisco, Claudio. “Real but Fragile: The Greater Pibor Administrative Area”. HSBA Working Paper 35. Geneva: Small Arms Survey (2015), available at: http://www.smallarmssurveysudan. org/fileadmin/docs/working-papers/HSBA-WP35-Greater-Pibor.pdf; “Murle faction announces defection to S. Sudan rebels”. Sudan Tribune (14 February 2015), available at: http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article53980; “South Sudan Democratic Movement/Army (SSDM/SSDA)”, Sudan Tribune, available at: http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?mot483 (accessed 13 January 2016). Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015 15

After your long struggle, what made you decide to take the risk of engaging in peace talks? What have been the consequences of that decision, and what are the relative costs and benefits of engaging in dialogue, as opposed to armed struggle?

SSDM-Cobra faction: Presumably, any group that Burman nationalists, so whenever the KNU and other is taking up arms is doing so in order to achieve a ethnic resistance forces held peace talks, the main particular objective. That was the case for the SSDM- agenda of the government, past and present, has Cobra faction. We engaged in the peace process – after been to disarm the KNU and other ethnic resistance a couple of years of uprising – because we realised forces, in order to deprive them of their ability to resist that at this point in time it would be the most effective domination and aggression. In the ongoing peace way to achieve our objectives. The consequences of process, the financial burden has not been lessened our decision can be described as positive, generally much, because the KNU has to maintain its defensive speaking: our key political objective is being negotiated capacity as before. The main benefits for the KNU are to our satisfaction. its ability to reconnect with the Karen communities in areas outside the Karen State, and wider scope to Karen National Union: It explain its political, social and is the policy of the Karen economic programmes. Karen National Union and the National people can now move and Democratic Front (NDF) alliance, engage in normal livelihoods which was formed in 1976, to more freely, as the shooting urge the government to settle war has stopped. Negotiating with the enemy the civil war and other problems We engaged in the peace by political means through process – after a couple of Irish Republican Army: Irish dialogue. For dialogue, the NDF Republicans engaged in peace laid down pre-conditions that: years of uprising – because talks with the British as early as • The government (the enemy) 1972, and again in 1974 and must make an overture first we realised that at this 1975. It was clear however for dialogue; that the British were unwilling • It must declare a nationwide point in time it would be to deal with the causes of the ceasefire; conflict. Their publicly declared • It must suspend or rescind the most effective way to interest was in ‘peace’ and their oppressive laws; intent was to outmanoeuvre the • The dialogue must be open achieve our objectives. IRA militarily. It was arguably the to the media, or at least the growing belief that there was a two sides should have the military stalemate that created freedom to meet the media the atmosphere for talks in the after each round of dialogue; early 1990s, even though there • The United Nations and the big-power countries had been intermittent private contact between the should serve as mediators or, failing that, as British and the Irish Republicans during the intervening witnesses or observers at the dialogue. years. Many factors led to and encouraged the The KNU held peace talks with the Burman/Myanmar growth in dialogue, including leaders on both sides governments in power on six different occasions (in who believed there was an opportunity that had not 1949, 1960, 1963, 1995, 2004 and as of 2012). What existed before to resolve the causes of conflict, or makes the KNU take risks is its belief in the intrinsic at least allow for a political way of dealing with the value of peace, persuasion by some peace NGOs and issues. Republicans saw negotiations as an extension foreign government representatives, and a declaration of the Struggle. The dangers lied in the lack of internal of willingness for change by the government in cohesion, through the splits and schisms constant power. The negative consequences have always in Republican history. Armed struggle was an option been the weakening of unity in the KNU, as a result of last resort and not a philosophy in itself. It was an of opportunistic programmes and ideas introduced option in the absence of a political way forward. We by some organisations and Myanmar governments. eventually found a political way forward in the Good These receive international support as a result of Friday Agreement, and this required political will on purposeful or uninformed reliance on false data.4 all sides. The Myanmar governments have been dominated by

4. The past and present Myanmar governments, which represent the Burman majority, have used the wrong population data to get international support. For example, the real Burman population is less than 28%, but the Myanmar governments would always say that the Burman form about 68–70% of the entire population. The inflated number is a result of counting as Burman all the Karen, Mon, Arakanese and other Buddhists on the plains in lower Burma. 16 Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015

How did/do you organise your group internally during the talks and how did/do you deal with those members of the group who were/are against the process?

KNU: There is virtually no KNU member against the are agreed normally by consensus after discussion. process. There are some members who urge greater The military leadership has a big job in disseminating caution and a systematic approach. Those who the decisions of the council to the military wing and the want to charge ahead without care or caution may soldiers. Of course, we are a big organisation, so some see these members as being against the process. members may disagree with the decision to enter a We have to remind ourselves frequently that, after peace process; but we are a democratic organisation all, peace talks are like a war so the majority will decide the without bloodshed. To maintain directions we take. Those who the unity of the organisation, the opposed the decision respected KNU political cadres, from time it in the end. Our delegation to to time, have to go to all areas these talks consists of members and explain the process to the of the High Command Council and members in We have to remind ourselves and includes members of both the organisational branches, at the political wing and the military the lower levels. frequently that, after all, wing. peace talks are like a war SSDM-Cobra faction: Our IRA: A Core Group was organisation has a political without bloodshed. established initially, to explore wing and a military wing. The the possibilities. As the potential leadership of the military wing developed, so did the size of the and the political wing together negotiating team. We tried to form a ‘High Command Council.’ be as inclusive as possible with This council is a representative regard to gender, geography body of the whole organisation’s membership. The and expertise, as we expanded. We had a concentrated political wing as a group circulates issues for discussion focus on internal and external communication. Those – normally with recommendations – to the High for and against talks were included for a balanced Command Council regarding political matters and the debate, but the collective view counted.

Negotiating with the enemy peace talks. Issues are debated within this council, and

Peace talks are inherently fraught with many challenges – continuing violence, disunity among parties, lack of trust, internal and external spoilers, and so on. What are the biggest threats to peace talks and how did you address them? How did you and your colleagues respond when the process encountered major deadlocks?

IRA: Arguably, the biggest threat to talks is a lack of address it? The number of threatening spoilers is low; internal cohesion, which usually comes from a lack of so, for us, what is important is that these spoilers are not communication, information and debate. Major deadlocks hidden, but are exposed within this process, especially call for new thinking and tactical versatility – it is always to our counterparts on the government delegation. For good to have some people who think outside the box. the sake of peace, and the success of this process, we think their delegation needs to be fully aware of what KNU: In the case of Burma, the sole cause of the some government and army people are doing. The problems is the ultra-nationalism of leaders of the Ceasefire Monitoring and Verification Team has assisted dominant ethnic group. The KNU position is to get a with this to some degree. On a number of occasions, win-win solution. Deadlocks call for holding high-level we have been the ones to concede our position and meetings to see what the stumbling block really is. compromise to overcome deadlocks. There is currently Basically, we have intensive discussions to see whether a situation where we are completely stuck. We simply we adopt a give-and-take approach, or call for a long cannot back away from a couple of points in the current time out. state of the negotiations. In our group, we have been unified in our position on these sticking points. We SSDM-Cobra faction: It is true that, in general, there have to trust in the mediators and the government to are a lot of actors who challenge the peace. Most of our recognise the importance of these issues and ensure concerns have been elements within the government that the relevant decision-makers can be identified to that have been working against this process. How to overcome this deadlock. Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015 17

In peace talks, the positions of parties often appear irreconcilable. Based on your experience as a participant in peace talks, can such fundamental differences be overcome? Did your discussion with the opposing side change your understanding of the issues and possible solutions?

KNU: In peace talks, the better part of valour is our position and provided an adequate solution. But, patience. Time is a great healer, they say. Time and indeed, we are all South Sudanese, so the issues patience can overcome most problems. So far, the that we were fighting for are well known to our hardliners on the government side still appear to think counterparts, and our grievances are not unclear to that they can win militarily by isolating and attacking them. Some of their communities have experienced the the ethnic forces, one at a same things; so there exists a time. On the other hand, the certain common understanding moderates think that they can from the beginning. That said, win through a silver-tongued, of course we think each side selective approach. The views has enlightened the other side and support of the people and Arguably, the biggest to some degree. And though the geopolitical situation should we do not always agree on the decide the key issues, in the threat to talks is a lack of issues, their delegates have long run. enabled us to understand internal cohesion. certain things in a new way. SSDM-Cobra faction: Of course, this is normal, and we IRA: More often than not, peace Negotiating with the enemy have experienced this. What talks involve parties that are we (both parties) have done is diametrically opposed. Issues to consult with our principals in such a case. The will always seem irreconcilable or intractable. Generally, of the top leadership from both sides has been evident we tried to deal with issues in bite-sized chunks or and enabled this process to move successfully. As silos but also, often though not always, under the for our understanding of the issues – first of all, we premise that ‘nothing is agreed until everything is can say that our fundamental proposed solution has agreed’. Trying to walk in your opponent’s shoes is not shifted, and in fact the government has accepted always helpful.

What role did mediators play during your peace process? Was their contribution positive or negative (for example in overcoming deadlocks) and consequently, what is your view of the role mediators should play in conflict resolution, if any?

KNU: There are some people, sometimes supported needed to facilitate a successful solution. Sometime financially by international organisations, who want to later on, after the second round, we wondered if appear like mediators, but in practice, they are quite they had shifted more toward the government’s opportunistic and biased against the ethnic resistance perspective. We feel very pushed by the mediators forces, including the KNU. International organisations and this has been a surprise to us recently. We have with superficial knowledge of Burma’s problems tend never felt that the mediators put pressure on the to regard the ethnic forces as unreasonable, outdated government side, despite the government’s failure to and backward. Their proxies adopt a similar attitude. bring decision-makers on security arrangements to Quite the opposite, mediators should be neutral and this current phase of talks. This has caused delays dig deeper into the history of the problem, in order to but they seem to blame us for being inflexible, rather serve the peace process effectively. than blame the government delegation for its inability to take critical decisions. If we had seen this type of IRA: Mutually agreed mediators or facilitators were very behaviour from the mediators in the beginning, we helpful but it is up to the protagonists to agree things. would not have reached this far. Our perspective on Trust is extremely important with such people. If they mediators is that they should be neutral, so that, in the move beyond their agreed role, it can do substantial process, if anything needs pushing, they should push damage so their role needs to be understood by all it in a logical way – not a way that seems obviously participants – most importantly by the mediators or one-sided. For example, if my proposal is logical, they facilitators themselves. should push the other side to see it and address it. Also, if there is a deadlock, they should be providing SSDM-Cobra faction: In the beginning, we felt the solutions/options to help us overcome it, but the mediators were a very positive element of this peace mediators have not really played this role of providing process. They are neutral and possess the good will solutions and options. 18 Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015 Preserving the peacemaking space

A frank conversation with Mark Bowden, Lakhdar Brahimi, Jimmy Carter, Alastair Crooke, Elisabeth Decrey Warner, Jon Hanssen-Bauer and David Harland 2013 Preserving the peacemaking space Preserving

Mark Bowden Lakhdar Brahimi Jimmy Carter Mark Bowden is the Deputy Special Lakhdar Brahimi led the UN Observer Jimmy Carter served as President of the Representative of the UN Secretary- Mission during the 1994 democratic United States from 1977 to 1981, during General and Resident Coordinator in elections in and served as which time he concluded the Camp David Afghanistan since November 2012. He UN Special Envoy to the Democratic Accords, the - peace treaty, previously served as the UN Resident Republic of Congo, Sudan, , the SALT II treaty with the Soviet Union, Coordinator in Somalia, as the Director of , Nigeria, and Côte d’Ivoire. and the establishment of diplomatic Civil Affairs in the UN Mission in Sudan, As Special Representative of the UN relations with . In 1982, he became and as the Chief of the Policy Development Secretary-General from 2001 to 2004, University Distinguished Professor at and Studies Branch in the UN Office for he was responsible for overseeing all Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, and the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. political, human rights, relief, recovery and founded the Carter Center. President Before joining the UN, he held senior reconstruction activities in Afghanistan. In Carter has engaged in conflict mediation positions in the UK Foreign Office and 2004 he served as UN Special Envoy in in Bosnia, Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Save the Children and served as Vice Iraq, and from 2012 to 2014 he was the Latin America and authored 28 books. In President of VOICE, a European platform Joint Special Representative of the UN 2002 the Norwegian Nobel Committee of humanitarian NGOs. and for Syria. awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize. Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015 19

Alastair Crooke Elisabeth Decrey Warner Alastair Crooke is Director of the Conflicts Elisabeth Decrey Warner is the Executive Forum in Beirut, and has experience in President and co-founder of Geneva working with Islamist movements notably in Call. She has worked on issues relating the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPTs), to refugees, torture and humanitarian , Afghanistan and Pakistan. He norms, and has been an elected official was formerly advisor on Middle East issues of the Canton of Geneva. Her work to European Union foreign policy chief was recognized in 2005 when she was Javier Solana, and worked for US Senator nominated for Switzerland for the Nobel George Mitchell’s Fact Finding Committee Peace Prize, and in 2015 when she was which inquired into the causes of the awarded an Honorary Doctorate by the Intifada, as well as for the International University of Geneva. She is a member of Quartet. He facilitated various ceasefires in the Advisory Board of the Geneva Centre the OPTs. He is author of Resistance: The for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces

Essence of the Islamist Revolution (2009) and of the Geneva International Centre for Preserving the peacemaking space and is a regular media commentator. Humanitarian Demining.

Jon Hanssen-Bauer David Harland Jon Hanssen-Bauer is Norway’s David Harland is the Executive ambassador to Israel. He was previously Director of the Centre for the Norwegian Special Representative for Humanitarian Dialogue. He previously the Middle East, and served as Norway’s served as Director of the Europe Special Envoy to the Sri Lankan peace and Latin America Division at the process from 2006 to 2009. As Managing UN Department of Peacekeeping Director of the Fafo Institute for Applied Operations (2007–2010) and Acting International Studies, he managed Deputy Special Representative of the programmes related to peace processes in Secretary-General in Haiti (2010), the Middle East and other conflict-affected in Pristina (2008) and in East Timor countries. He has extensive experience with (1999–2000). He also held the position international co-operation and institution of Political Adviser to the Commander building, notably in the Middle East, the of the UN Protection Force and Head Americas, Africa, Russia, Eastern Europe, of Civil Affairs for the UN in Bosnia and China and Tibet. Herzegovina (1993–1998). 20 Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015

Do you feel that mediation is gradually becoming the favoured ‘go-to’ option for policy-makers, or do some circumstances simply not lend themselves to negotiated solutions?

Jon Hanssen-Bauer: Yes and yes, but it depends many aspiring mediators – organised or freelance. who we are talking about. I felt there was a setback for There is also a tendency to look for quick solutions, negotiations in the aftermath of 9/11 and the launching which are seldom available. All conflicts end at some of the ‘’. The space left for negotiations stage – except, so far, the Palestinian question – and with difficult parties became more restricted. I feel this all end with a negotiation of some sort. was more of a political issue than a judicial one. Since then, the balance has swung back and politicians prefer Jimmy Carter: I am convinced that antagonists negotiations to a point where the claim that the military can often resolve their disputes through dialogue option is on the table almost sounds hollow. The order and mediation. Yet there are some circumstances of the day is to terminate war and pull out. Then, the in which a negotiated settlement is not possible, at need to engage with non-state actors and proscribed least not at a given moment. This is especially true groups increases. Syria, at least for the moment, when disputing parties feel as though they have not does not lend itself to a negotiated solution, but exhausted all military options, as well as when only one entrenches itself into its military side of the conflict is willing to dynamic. The parties refuse to cease hostilities. More recently, negotiate, and the international the Carter Center has provided community is unable to make ad hoc support to the African them shift their calculations. Union’s mediation efforts The Security Council appears between the Governments of paralyzed and the international In this present era, the Sudan and South Sudan. Both community is unable, for the governments were maintaining moment, to define a common process is less understood the position that the other’s strategy for solving the conflict to be co-participatory, and economy would collapse politically. In the absence of any first, creating an environment unified, political pressure from ‘solutions’ are seen to be whereby a negotiated solution the international community, was not possible. However, the military dynamic on the ones that are to be imposed Sudan and South Sudan ground prevails. We have not have since realised that yet found the success formula through ‘pressure’ and the economic stability is in each for efficiently stimulating, from side’s interest, and they are outside, the political will to assertive promulgation of working toward restarting oil negotiate. We know that without exportation, which also will such will, there will be no talks. one single narrative. nurture a more positive political All parties to conflicts know that atmosphere. Whether or not a negotiated outcome implies mediation is a favoured ‘go-to’ Preserving the peacemaking space Preserving painful concessions. Sometimes option for policy-makers is an international pressure works, open question that depends on and other times coaching may work better. Hurting the issues at stake. Mediated solutions also require stalemates may also create opportunities. But too much a certain ripeness and willingness from all sides to support may detract political will too. engage in a peace process otherwise such efforts are futile, if not harmful. Mark Bowden: I think that mediation is definitely becoming the favourite option. But there are two Alastair Crooke: [Here and in other answers, I refer downsides to it: one is that it tends to lead to short only to strands of thinking in the Middle East and Iran.] term power-sharing situations which are not all that There is a sense here that ‘true’ mediation, by which I stable; the other downside relates to situations like Syria mean a mutual modification of prior expectations and where mediation has proved to be less of an option. mental templates through the process of negotiation, But also, consider groups like Al-Shabaab in Somalia has gradually been lost. In this present era, the – they are the ones who have ruled out mediation. process is less understood to be co-participatory, and So, there are clearly some instances where mediation ‘solutions’ are seen to be ones that are to be imposed is not possible, but this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t through ‘pressure’ and the assertive promulgation of attempt to negotiate for humanitarian access or for one single narrative. Since the Vietnam war, the ‘war other purposes. of narratives’ has become the key component to the now dominant counter-insurgency approach in the Lakhdar Brahimi: Mediation is certainly much West. The problem with the ‘narrative war’ approach discussed, studied and taught these days. There are is that its reductive content erases alternative ways Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015 21 of ‘seeing’ and understanding any particular conflict. Elisabeth Decrey Warner: As a starting point, The result is that the ‘go-to’ approach is less likely negotiated solutions should always be on the table. to be mediation (since the ‘other’ narrative inevitably Even if they don’t prove fruitful, or are impossible becomes demonised), and pressure, containment to pursue, they may once again become viable as and Special Forces’ covert operations emerge as circumstances change. It is very difficult to evaluate the preferred ‘go-to’ option. In this context, in the success in peace negotiations, but a ‘no negotiation’ Middle East, judicial processes and now human rights plan will never bring sustainable peace. themselves are increasingly being seen as a part of the Western toolbox of ‘pressures’, and serving as David Harland: There is certainly a retreat from the the pretext for external interventions. This has been purely military response to conflict. The decade after particularly the case in Syria, where the West has 9/11 showed an enthusiasm for military intervention, sought to ‘pre-outcome’ the negotiations by insisting including by unilateral coalitions, but also in other on the standing down of President Assad, based on a formats, with the involvement of the UN, European demonising narrative of his attacks on his own people. Union (EU) and African Union (AU). It’s true that there This insistence on a singularity of narrative – in polar has been some reflection, some questioning as to opposition to that of Russia, China and Iran who regard whether or not those interventions produced the right Assad as enjoying the support of a majority of Syrians – results given their cost in blood and treasure. Mediation has effectively foreclosed on effective mediation, which is sometimes the beneficiary of that, even when it might requires Russian cooperation to be feasible. not be the most appropriate tool.

As a peacemaker/humanitarian actor, have you found that legal developments have made it harder in recent years to talk to proscribed groups and alleged war criminals, or has little changed?

Lakhdar Brahimi: In the last 20/25 years, we have work. The US Supreme Court’s 2010 Humanitarian seen an increase in attempts to ‘regulate’ conflict Law Project decision held that it is constitutional to and hold to account those who do not comply with prohibit non-material assistance to organisations listed Preserving the peacemaking space established standards. All in all, that is a very welcome as terrorist, including training in human rights or conflict development. Tensions between campaigners for resolution. This inevitably gives many US NGOs pause, human rights and mediators are when considering whether unavoidable, understandable or not to open dialogue with and acceptable. Neither side organisations on the terrorist should try to set the agenda list. Similarly, I have continued to of the other. More generally, engage with individuals accused all those caring for a people in by the International Criminal conflict are working towards Overly broad counter- Court (ICC). It is important to the same goal: the restoration maintain channels for dialogue of peace and justice. It will come terrorism legislation has with political or military leaders as no surprise if someone like who are also significant actors myself says that, whereas every reduced the space available in a conflict. I do not see an effort needs to be made to to many non-governmental automatic trade-off between avoid tension between justice increased judicial accountability and peace, the aim of actually organisations for for the most egregious human putting an end to the violent rights violations or war crimes conflict should be seen as a peacemaking work. and conflict resolution. The priority. A concrete case and a challenge presented by question: has the indictment of institutions like the ICC for the President of Sudan several conflict resolution is that they years ago served the case of do not lend themselves to justice and peace? Has it served carefully calibrated negotiations, the cause of justice alone? including the application of carrots and sticks, designed to resolve violent conflict. I and the Carter Center Jimmy Carter: Recent legal developments have not have a long history of engaging governments and directly impacted my peacemaking work. I have been non-state armed groups who are outside the realm engaged in what some call Track 1.5 diplomacy for of traditional diplomacy. We know from experience many years and continue these efforts. However, I that every significant stakeholder in a conflict needs recognise that overly broad counter-terrorism legislation a voice in the mediation process. Excluding them only has reduced the space available to many non- incentivises them to undermine the process. To this governmental organisations (NGOs) for peacemaking point, the Center has been engaged in regular dialogue 22 Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015

with Hamas leaders in Gaza, the West Bank, and the through inflating rival claims to legitimacy – and making diaspora. While progress has been slow, it is critically any solution a zero-sum game. important to maintain an open channel of trust and communication with Hamas as a key stakeholder in Jon Hanssen-Bauer: This is a complicated set of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Similarly, my engagement questions. Certainly, legal developments have made it with Sudan dates back to my presidency, and the Carter harder to talk to proscribed groups, even if the legal Center has been involved there almost continuously framework makes room for talking, when it is done in since the late 1980s. While the international community order to obtain peace. Illegal or not, the political tendency is limited in its engagement with Khartoum, and more is to shy away from contact with proscribed groups. specifically direct talks with President Omar al-Bashir, Let us look at Hamas. When Hamas won the elections I and my staff continue to communicate directly with in Palestine and a coalition government that included President Bashir and other key stakeholders in the Hamas was established in 2007, the international region. Our engagement often fills gaps that formal community declared that the elections were free and international peace processes are unable to address, fair, but refused to deal with the resulting government. often due to legal constraints. One thing is to halt donor support and finance for the Ministries led by Hamas, which becomes very delicate. Elisabeth Decrey Warner: It is ironic that one Another is to refrain from contacts with the proscribed can be invited by the US State Department and group and from attempts at moderating its members. the Pentagon to speak to officials about the value Norway did the first, but continued to talk. The Norwegian of negotiated humanitarian solutions which are Government has long been a staunch defender of potentially criminal acts under US law. And while dialogue in international politics, and took a different whispered ‘assurances’ that stance regarding the Palestinian laws such as the ‘material government and talking to support’ law will not be Hamas, as compared to other used against humanitarians/ European countries. Today we peacemakers go some way see that dialogue is regaining to making things ‘business as some of its old ground. In usual,’ we are only one terror There has to be space for the Sri Lankan case, the strike away from such laws mediators to make the peace proscription of the Tamil Tigers being used to their full effect. reduced the contact the group As they are on the books without which nothing – had with the surrounding world. already, they can be used to Nobody except the Norwegians prosecute past acts. Therefore, justice and other public talked to them. The proscription the ‘chilling effect’ is real. We all hence contributed to the bunker know that uncertainty is bad for goods – can ever flow. vision of the leaders. The Tamil business. It also scares away Tigers felt that the EU ban in donors and creates a much 2006 closed their hopes for a heavier administrative burden political solution facilitated by on small organisations that are international assistance. There already overburdened. In terms of accountability for were good reasons for proscribing the Tigers, but it was Preserving the peacemaking space Preserving international crimes, universal jurisdiction laws are wrong to stop talking to them. The Tigers closed the door making it harder to find locations where we can carry on negotiations and used the proscription as an excuse out our work. Geneva Call hasn’t yet experienced to opt for a military strategy. Anyway, mediators should that interlocutors are less likely to take part in not try to guarantee immunity for alleged war criminals, as dialogue, but that could very well be the case. they cannot do so with the current legal systems in place. I feel that the increasing focus on judicial accountability Alastair Crooke: In our case, legal developments is right and that the risk of ‘closing doors’ is somewhat have not made it harder to talk to proscribed groups. overstated. The problem for Colonel Gaddafi, in my view, Conflicts Forum has continued regardless, but was not that he feared the International Criminal Court undoubtedly the existence of legislation has adversely or that he had no place to turn to, but that he did not affected our ability to finance our work. But at another want to leave the country or give up. level, there is wide concern here (and in Russia), at Western readiness to bypass the United Nations Mark Bowden: There are a number of ways in which Security Council, the UN Charter and international counter-terrorism provisions have made humanitarian law – when it suits the West – to establish ad hoc negotiation more difficult. The US Supreme Court ruling groups of friendly states that usurp legal procedures has deterred US NGOs and US citizens from engagement in order to ‘withdraw’ legitimacy from a particular with proscribed organisations (e.g. Hamas). The US Office political structure, and to presumably confer legitimacy for Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) has placed restrictions on whomsoever it designates. This practice both on humanitarian assistance, and Security Council undermines international law and severely diminishes Resolution 1916 has maintained cumbersome reporting the prospects for negotiated political settlements procedures on humanitarian assistance in Somalia. But Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015 23 the UN has kept a straightforward line on humanitarian David Harland: Oh yes, for sure. In my view, there negotiations. It’s been acknowledged that humanitarian are two problems: on the one hand, there is the legal actors, at the appropriate level, are empowered to pursuit of the mediators, and, on the other hand, there conduct humanitarian negotiations. The problem in is the legal pursuit of the parties. In the legal pursuit the past was that a number of agencies were facing of the mediators, there is no doubt that the Holder specific problems with some of their donor countries. decision represents a narrowing of the options for Different national governments have interpreted counter- third party actors. Furthermore, the Holder decision is terrorism legislation differently, adjusting their assistance not something that appears in a vacuum. The political framework and making humanitarian negotiations more rhetoric around it – not just in the US but in a variety of complex. After UN Security Council Resolution 1916, countries – that we don’t talk to terrorists is a serious many in the donor capitals spent time discussing its problem in an age where almost anybody you don’t like implications, delaying humanitarian decision-making at can be labelled a terrorist. As for the legal pursuit of the a critical period, namely the period leading up to the parties – the normative and legal tide is clearly rising, and famine in Somalia. In the case of Somalia, opportunities it’s harder, for example, for the UN to deal with President for negotiation were lost at a critical time reducing the Omar al-Bashir because he is indicted by the ICC. The options for humanitarian access at the time of the international system needs to find the space where the famine. It was not until the declaration of famine was legal pressure is on and the legal accountability tide can made that donors were able to put concerns about continue to rise, so that leaders think twice before they counter-terrorism to one side and focus exclusively on commit grave breaches of international humanitarian humanitarian need. The situation has since improved and law. But there has to be space for mediators to make there is greater clarity among many Western countries the peace without which nothing – justice and other about the ‘humanitarian imperative’. Also, in the case of public goods – can ever flow. And I think that we have Afghanistan, counter-terrorism actions have seemingly been quite good about pushing the normative envelope, become more ‘negotiable’ (e.g. individuals being able to but we’ve been quite bad about protecting the space negotiate removal from the list). in which mediation can happen.

In the post 9/11 legal environment, how should conflict mediators strike the Preserving the peacemaking space right balance between bringing armed groups to the peace table, and heeding international criminal justice standards/counter-terrorism provisions?

Mark Bowden: In some cases, proscribed individuals However, isolating leaders on the basis of alleged crimes might be open to negotiations if they were to be given a against humanity rarely prevents further conflict, but waiver. This seemed to be the case with some elements instead may contribute to it. Recent history has shown of Al-Shabaab who had an incentive in being taken us that isolation simply closes doors. While I advocate off the list. So it’s worth noting that counter-terrorism for upholding international human rights standards legislation isn’t always negative. You can potentially use and the alleviation of human suffering, I maintain my counter-terrorism legislation in long-standing commitment to your favour to bring people to talk to all actors, especially the table. those in positions of authority who can impact the lives of Jimmy Carter: 9/11 and the millions. I have done this in ongoing threat of global terrorism Nicaragua, the Middle East, have deeply impacted the You can potentially Bosnia, Sudan and North psychology of the international Korea, and will continue to do community, particularly the use counter-terrorism so when advisable and invited. United States. The lack of legislation in your favour to definition of who is, and who Lakhdar Brahimi: A mediator is not, a terrorist is a source bring people to the table. should be given ample space of concern for me, as some to deal with all parties involved governments have used a in a conflict. International justice sweeping description of terrorism standards must accommodate to silence domestic opposition. I that necessity. The UN does do not minimise the seriousness not agree to be a party to any of the threat posed by al-Qaida and other groups who agreement that provides for blanket amnesty. Everyone deserve the terrorist label, but there is a need to be more now knows that sanctions are a blunt instrument precise and nuanced when using the term. As regards (remember Iraq and its hundreds of thousands of kids criminal justice standards, the Carter Center was involved killed by a very harsh sanctions regime). Organisations in the early discussions of the draft Rome Statute and I and individuals put on terrorist lists are at times needed personally advocated for the establishment of the ICC. as key interlocutors in a negotiation to end a conflict. 24 Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015

Alastair Crooke: In more than thirty years of travels – these are challenges which the facilitators involvement with conflicts, I have never known one need to solve. If there is a will and a serious attempt in which the whole process of war was not, in itself, to negotiate, practical and pragmatic solutions can anything more than a complete derogation of human be found during negotiations, without contravening rights. Whilst the attempt to create a framework of international justice standards. judicial accountability may be laudable in theory, its flaws in terms of practical application are clear. We Elisabeth Decrey Warner: The balance is different have no settled understanding of the rights and limits for criminal justice and counter-terrorism. Debates on to armed resistance and state violence; and we have accountability and combating terrorist acts should not no settled acceptance of what constitutes the limits be lumped together. In terms of counter-terrorism, to state sovereignty on the one hand, or the limits or there is no right balance, as simply doing one’s job rights to external intervention, on the other. Conflict may be a criminal act. The choice is either to close the mediators should always heed these major limitations programme or to do the work with the risks entailed. to judicial processes. In terms of criminal justice and talking to alleged perpetrators, negotiators should think of the impact of Jon Hanssen-Bauer: This is a challenge. But in my their intervention in relation to the small picture (their view, our job is to bring armed groups to the peace own agenda) and the big picture (the global agenda). table to end violence and violations of human rights And, finally, negotiating humanitarian agreements or and international humanitarian law. Whenever it is peace agreements doesn’t mean impunity for the possible to settle a conflict, it is worthwhile bringing perpetrators. This has to be made clear to the parties. the parties together. A negotiated solution will rarely be deemed legitimate nationally or internationally if you David Harland: Timing. Justice delayed is justice do not address violations of the past. ‘You deal with denied, but justice premature, which leads to continuing the past, or the past deals with you’, is a smart way to slaughter, isn’t a great achievement either. Finding the summarise this. Thus, addressing accountability issues right moment is key. Take the case of Milosevic – it’s is a question of timing, as these issues must be dealt ideal first to do a peace deal with him in Dayton and, with in a way that meets international legal standards. when he’s no longer useful to the peace process, then The possibility of bringing the groups to the table may you can indict him, arrest him and put him on trial. And depend on the willingness of the parties to provide the you can’t say it too loudly, that this is your policy goal, necessary security guarantees for negotiators. That is a but it is, right? First you do a deal with Pinochet, and different, but related question. Where to convene, who you give him an amnesty, then you realise there are can be accepted as negotiators, and how to arrange holes in the amnesty, and you chase him legally.

How might relevant stakeholders work together to ensure that sufficient space is maintained for peace dialogue (e.g. code of conduct for mediators, humanitarian exemptions, tacit official approval)?

Alastair Crooke: Stakeholders should work together by donors on Somalia in the period leading up to the Preserving the peacemaking space Preserving – by being less reticent in pointing to the limitations of famine. Fortunately, that precedent hasn’t been used judicial processes in respect to civil conflicts – and by in other countries, and it would be useful to drop it demanding that priority be given to resolving the conflict, from Somalia, as it amounts to an ‘invasion’ of the rather than pointing to culpability through indictments humanitarian space and has been very unproductive that precede the political process. In my experience, the in terms of impact. So I think that’s one issue on which issues of reconciliation and retribution are psychological international actors could work together to keep ones which a society has to decide in the wake of an humanitarian actions outside the UN Security Council end to conflict, rather than just judicial issues. It is they arena, except in terms of facilitation. The UN Security who have to find the way to live together as a society Council can facilitate, but it should not proscribe or limit after the violence has stopped. humanitarian access.

Mark Bowden: On the humanitarian side, I think that Lakhdar Brahimi: As a general rule, a mediator should the engagement of the UN Security Council in Somalia, have all the space he or she needs to engage the through Resolution 1916 and its predecessor, was parties. Could/should that be codified? I don’t know. a backward step. And I think that a number of us, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, Jimmy Carter: The Carter Center requires that all key would like to see that sort of engagement dropped. actors are involved in a peace dialogue and we convene The UN Security Council shouldn’t be ‘licensing’ a broad range of stakeholders. Since the Carter Center humanitarian actions, because it goes against the was established thirty years ago, there has been principles of humanitarian space (e.g. impartiality). This a proliferation of non-governmental organisations has to be seen in the context of slow decision-making involved in peacemaking and conflict prevention. Some Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015 25 of these organisations are credible, while others lack current peace processes with proscribed groups such the requisite skills, history, and relationships to enable as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia and them to be genuine mediators. Caution needs to be the Kurdistan Workers’ Party. Will it be seen in political exercised to avoid overlapping mandates of mediators and diplomatic circles that counter-terrorism laws get or peacebuilding organisations. in the way of strategic objectives? This remains to be seen. Elisabeth Decrey Warner: States involved in and supporting peace negotiations/humanitarian dialogue Jon Hanssen-Bauer: I think that secrecy around should lead the way towards ensuring that counter- negotiations, as well as the use of a neutral venue, terrorism laws are not overly restrictive (i.e. in order for are needed, almost always and particularly during an act to be proscribed it should require an intent to the initial phases, in order to ensure sufficient space further a terrorist act). Like-minded states should invite for negotiations based on direct, face-to-face representatives of the peacebuilding and humanitarian encounters between the parties. The Oslo Channel, community to share experiences, and promote those for example, was operated partly through proxies interventions that have a demonstrable positive impact and the talks were secret. Before the handshake in on peacebuilding/protection of civilians. In addition, Washington between Arafat and Rabin, the two parties representatives of these communities could report recognised each other, the Israeli ban on meetings situations where restrictions have had a negative impact with the Palestine Liberation Organization was lifted on their work. They should and Arafat was allowed entry also demand evidence that to the US. Likewise, prior material support proscriptions to talks conducted officially on peacebuilding/humanitarian between the Sri Lankan action have reduced terrorism. government and the Tamil Codes of conduct may be a We should talk to almost Tigers, the government delisted viable way of demonstrating the Tigers. In 2006, Norway responsibility if they do not everyone, and if a decided to no longer align with include an undue administrative EU proscriptions to continue burden and are ultimately in conflict faces prospects facilitating negotiations in Sri the hands of humanitarians/ Lanka. This enabled Norway Preserving the peacemaking space peacebuilders, keeping in line of a peaceful settlement to convene the parties three with the fundamental principles times during the same year, of such actors. Exemptions through negotiations, we even after the EU proscription should only be considered if in May. The main stakeholders they are blanket exemptions. should not hesitate to to the process, like India, the Allowing for exemptions for bring the armed parties to US, the EU, Switzerland and individual organisations will others, approved of and helped have significant negative the table. facilitate these meetings. In consequences on neutrality, my view, it all depends on will politicise the process and the context. We should talk will ultimately impact on the to almost everyone, and if a effectiveness and safety of conflict faces prospects of a the entire sector. Tacit official peaceful settlement through approval may be an option as long as the status negotiations, we should not hesitate to bring the quo remains but, as soon as a situation changes (for armed parties to the table. But we do not need to instance, a new politician is elected, or a terror strike bring anybody, to any table, and in any constellation, occurs), all bets are off. So, tacit approval provides no all the time. The legal issues involved are less of a security for organisations trying to protect their staff. All concern than the political implications. We need to these options largely depend on how much pressure reflect carefully on whether we give undue recognition supportive states and civil society are able to bring to to some groups, while more moderate groups may bear on those states with strict counter-terrorism laws. not get the same attention, just because it is trendy Supportive states have taken some steps, but it is to talk to those who are more radical. questionable whether they have made it a priority vis- à-vis other strategic objectives. It does not seem that David Harland: Formalisation is good. My model civil society is able to make a lot of gains, particularly is the humanitarian community. This year marks the in states where there is a lot of political support for 150th anniversary of the Red Cross, which has been strong counter-terrorism measures. Therefore it is not very good at defining a relatively narrow humanitarian a particularly optimistic picture, although there may space within which they operate freely according to be room for administrative improvements such as certain international principles. I think broadly we the use of exemptions. Finally, other factors that can seek something analogous for the peacemakers. have an impact over the medium- to long-term are the We’re not saying that, in times of war, we think that 26 Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015

all activities should have the same protections as the agreement among certain players in the field on an humanitarian ones, and certainly we are not saying opt-in basis. And then you hope to proceed in a that, in order to create space for principled mediation, ‘snowballing’ fashion, getting more organisations to you should lift all restrictions on contact. But some sign onto this document. Starting with organisations analogy based on this to advance the public good is better, because once you get countries signing is needed and currently doesn’t exist. And the onto it, it takes on a treaty-type character, and that prospects for this are good. The argument that you requires forms of legal engagement, which can slow don’t talk to terrorists and you deem a terrorist anyone things down. To begin with, I would have a short fighting against you is, in some term objective – probably of ways, an artefact of the war some sort of Charter among on terror, a highly militarised organisations – and if you can phase. That approach has get some of the main state obviously not turned out to be supporters in mediation to a solution to every problem, come on board too, great. but it also has an afterlife of Something that is analogous But the next objective in the sorts in these very restrictive longer term could be a more policies and laws regarding to the humanitarian formal instrument between whom one is allowed to states (either through an speak to. As the world moves space, or softly analogous intergovernmental forum, or to a more nuanced view of a stand-alone instrument). how to manage violence, it’s to diplomatic immunity, Over several hundred years, also reasonable to assume diplomatic immunity has that we will move to a more makes a lot of sense. emerged to serve this function, nuanced position on who to as people ultimately came to engage with, and how. But this the view that decapitating the requires principled, intellectual emissary who didn’t accept legwork to be done, the way your demands wasn’t always the humanitarians have done a good way of ‘getting to yes’. for 150 years, and we just hope to accelerate it a I am not sure that every mediator should have some bit. A code of conduct is certainly a good way to equivalent of diplomatic immunity, but something go about it. The humanitarians have the Geneva that is analogous to the humanitarian space, or softly Conventions, the additional protocols, the UN General analogous to diplomatic immunity, makes a lot of Assembly resolution which defines humanitarian sense. Peacemaking is a set of activities which – principles. I think that it would be hard for us – we when undertaken in a principled fashion – is clearly are probably looking at something analogous to the a major contribution to the public good, but is heavily Sphere principles, where you have a negotiated constrained. We would like to change that.

Are the issues cited above being adequately recognised and debated at the

Preserving the peacemaking space Preserving international level?

Elisabeth Decrey Warner: They are well debated wonder whether raising these issues formally might at the technical level – and even policy-makers be counter-productive, and instigate further action understand the problems, to some extent – but there from the UN Security Council, or the strengthening of is a gap in dialogue between policy-makers focused counter-terrorism legislation. We took this discussion on diplomacy, and policy-makers focused on counter- quite a long way on Somalia and some governments terrorism measures or accountability. One way forward (the United Kingdom) actually helped us to push back would be to shine a light on some absurdities. For on this. But we were concerned that, in the US, this example, what is the fate of a Norwegian civil servant might lead to even tougher actions. All in all, it does who has signed off on a plane ticket bringing a FARC seem that the impact of counter-terrorism legislation negotiator to Oslo, when this civil servant will visit on humanitarian access is rarely discussed. New York? Or the fact that convincing ‘terrorists’ that they shouldn’t be terrorists may be interpreted to be Jimmy Carter: More attention needs to be given to a criminal act? the impact of policy and legal constraints resulting from the global fight against terrorism. The UN has drafted a Mark Bowden: I don’t think these issues are being guide on mediation, which includes provisions on these adequately recognised, and certainly not debated. questions. For our part, the Carter Center continues to The issues of power sharing, of confining humanitarian call for reform in counter-terrorism legislation to ensure access or bringing in the UN Security Council haven’t that space is preserved for legitimate peacebuilding really been given the debate that they require. But I and mediation work. Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015 27

Jon Hanssen-Bauer: I feel that transitional justice a purely criminalising approach is sustainable – and the implications for mediation have been subject except at the cost of exacerbated tensions within to debate for many years, but the debate is not really society. Qualitative political change is almost always solved. And I think it is important to enlarge the accompanied by some element of violence. The questions in the way that this interview does. question is how to manage this; and how to manage it in such a way that it does not lead to an upward Alastair Crooke: No. We should recall that the spiral of escalating conflict. judicial and criminal approach was introduced in the wake of 9/11 to rebut any suggestion that (any) David Harland: Certainly not. I think there’s a general Islamists represented a political cause, or offered view that these are happy days for mediation. Everybody any sort of political challenge to the Western wants to be a mediator, and to study mediation, there’s order – they were just criminals and terrorists. In great resourcing of mediation. And that is largely this present era of growing popular challenge to due to this search for alternatives to purely military ruling elites everywhere, both secular and Islamist, options. But it doesn’t mean that it’s an approach to and with the legitimacy of the existing order under conflict resolution that has been very well supported much wider challenge, I am quite doubtful that intellectually politically, or legally. Preserving the peacemaking space 28 Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015 New voices on peacemaking

A frank conversation with Fiona Lortan, David Mozersky, Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini and Theerada Suphaphong 2012

Fiona Lortan David Mozersky Fiona Lortan is a Senior Political Officer in the Peace David Mozersky is the incoming director of a program on and Security Department of the African Union (AU) the nexus of climate change, energy and conflict at the Commission in Addis Ababa. She serves as the Focal Renewable and Appropriate Energy Lab at the University Point for the AU-UN Strategic Partnership in the area of California – Berkeley. He was previously a Director of of Peace and Security. Since 2010, she has worked Investments at Humanity United, where he also led a Track as part of the support team to the AU High Level II project with northern and southern Sudanese officials. From Implementation Panel on Sudan. Ms Lortan was also October 2010 to June 2011, he was seconded to the AU part of the support team to the Panel of Eminent African High Level Implementation Panel on Sudan. He also spent six Personalities that mediated an end to the Kenyan post- years with the International Crisis Group, where he managed election crisis in 2008. the Horn of Africa program. New voices on peacemaking Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini Theerada Suphaphong Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini is co-founder of the International Theerada Suphaphong graduated from the University of Civil Society Action Network, and served as the first Oregon in 1996 and subsequently worked as a researcher Gender and Inclusion Adviser on the UN Mediation attached to the Thai Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs Standby Team. In 2000, she was among the civil society while assisting the Committee chairman in 2001. From 2006 to leaders and drafters of UN Security Council Resolution 2008, she continued her studies in International Development 1325 on women, peace and security. She is the 2016 at Chulalongkorn University. In 2008, she became the Greeley Peace Scholar at the University of Massachusetts, Bangkok-based coordinator of the Inter-Parliamentary Lowell, and was the 2015 Perdita Huston Human Rights Myanmar Caucus at the Association of Southeast Asian Awardee of Washington DC’s UN Association. She serves Nations. Ms Suphaphong is currently a project manager for as an advisor for Global Learning and the High Level the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (HD), working on the Panel on the Post-2015 Development Agenda. conflict in Southern Thailand and national reconciliation. Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015 29

How did you become involved in mediation and peacemaking?

Fiona Lortan: Well, I became involved as a Political process when the Machakos Protocol was signed in Officer in the African Union Peace and Security 2002. I followed the negotiations from that beginning all Department during the Kenyan mediation exercise the way through to the completion and then through the when the post-election violence broke out. The former implementation phase – and that slowly led me deeper UN Secretary-General was appointed as the and deeper into the world of negotiation and mediation, mediator for the African Union, so I was sent as one of with a heavy emphasis on Sudan, but also covering the the AU Commission staff supporting Mr Annan’s team. Horn of Africa and East Africa. When I joined Humanity United in 2008, I began implementing our own Track Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini: I became interested in II process working with officials from North and South conflict prevention, mediation and conflict resolution Sudan, ahead of the eventual negotiations on post- after experiencing the revolution referendum issues. Ultimately in Iran as a child in 1979. It that led to the secondment showed me that when you have to the AU Panel and direct an internal crisis or conflict, the involvement in that negotiation effects are multi-generational. process. It is not a one-off event. So it is important to try to limit the When you have an internal Theerada Suphaphong: I damage and to come up with have worked in the political field solutions that take into account crisis or conflict, the effects as an assistant to a member the needs of all the different of Parliament and worked in constituencies and enable a are multi-generational. It is parliamentary committees, society to maintain its coherence which bring together people as opposed to having the social not a one-off event. holding different views, as fabric ripped apart. well as stakeholders relevant to conflict. It really all started David Mozersky: I initially when I worked for a foundation became involved through work that was involved with in Sudan, through a programme someone who later became a run by the Canadian Government. After I graduated from Senator in Thailand. He worked with several provinces, university, I worked with an NGO in Kenya supported by including Southern Thailand, on different issues the Canadian Government that was involved in trying to relevant to peace and conflict resolution, particularly broker some kind of Track II process between North and in the context of conflicts related to natural resources, South Sudan. That led me to work with the International minorities’ rights, and justice. So I have been involved Crisis Group where I spent six years and, through good in the mediation support field since 2001 and worked fortune, I happened to be there at the start of the peace with HD since June 2009. New voices on peacemaking What have been your most important experiences in mediation and peacemaking? Any mistakes which you would avoid repeating in the future?

Fiona Lortan: I started off working as part of Mr not control the outside narrative, unfortunately. We Annan’s team in Kenya and then I moved on to work have now started trying to have much more interaction on the AU High-Level Implementation Panel team that with the press and the media, putting out statements facilitated talks between Sudan and South Sudan, more often. which is chaired by former South African President Thabo Mbeki. What I find really fascinating and Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini: [Laughs] I have worked instructive is comparing the very different mediation on the issues of mediation and peace processes styles of the two mediators. Of course, the context since the 1990s. I’m interested in the inclusion of is very different: Kenya was a complex mediation women particularly, because I have come across process just over forty days long, while the process women in conflict areas who have lost sons, families, between Sudan and South Sudan focusing on post- homes, everything – and yet have been able to get secession relations has continued since May 2010, beyond their pain and see the need for peace and almost two years. The one thing we have failed to reconciliation. They truly inspire me. They are the do in the Sudan-South Sudan mediation which Mr backbone of what has become the global ‘women, Annan did very skilfully was to effectively use public peace and security agenda’. I think that those are the media and communications. Although we are working voices that we need at the peace table if we want to almost constantly with Sudanese parties, the outside bring about sustainable peace. We listen to the war world doesn’t really know what’s going on – we do makers but we exclude those who live and speak 30 Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015

and work for peace. It’s paradoxical and absurd on John Garang and Ali Osman Taha. That was really the some level. In terms of what I wouldn’t do… I’m bedrock for that agreement and, in retrospect, that kind not sure how it happened, but I feel as if I have of partnership and trust at a high level is what has been the word ‘gender’ stamped on my forehead [laughs] missing in the current North-South negotiations over the and I think that this does disservice to the cause, last year and a half. And there’s really no substitute for it. because there’s such a misunderstanding of what it means to have a gender perspective. To me it’s Theerada Suphaphong: One experience for me was been an amazing experience, because I get to learn discovering the mediation team that was working on a about all sorts of issues: whether it’s constitutional suspension of hostilities agreement between the military or security issues, governance or justice, there is officials of the Thai Government and representatives always a ‘gender perspective’. I value this broad of the militant movement. The most exciting part was range of elements, because it gives me a much more seeing them working together, sitting together, coming comprehensive understanding of peace processes to agreement and seeing this level of trust develop. It was and mediation. good to see meetings aiming to negotiate for the suspension of David Mozersky: I’ll start hostilities in Thailand, since such with the mistakes first: I think meetings have not taken place I am guilty, like many third with those parties’ mediators. party interlocutors, of failing Another memorable experience to adapt my own timelines to I think I am guilty, was when I had to facilitate and the timelines of the parties. moderate the conversation in And so inevitably, negotiation like many third party a particular meeting because processes, consultations, the senior moderators were have taken longer and have interlocutors, of failing to not available at the time. It been more drawn out than was good to see meetings mediators in Sudan expected. adapt my own timelines to on these issues take place, Rather than learning that lesson as they were the first of their and integrating it into future the timelines of the parties. kind between these parties. planning, I think the international In the context of the political community is constantly being conflict at the national level in disappointed by the slow pace Thailand, there was a time when of things in the negotiations people discussed the idea of in Sudan, as it simply doesn’t match the perception establishing a new national dialogue. I, my team and of urgency that exists outside – in New York or some other stakeholders thought that it was not yet Washington or elsewhere – so I think that’s a common time to pursue a national dialogue because of political mistake and something that continues to repeat itself. factors. But now that reconciliation efforts have become My most important experience, I think, was witnessing politicised and not very inclusive, when I reflect on that the successful negotiation and conclusion of the Sudan conversation on the national dialogue I feel like I should Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) negotiations, have supported it. I should have agreed to explore the as it provided evidence of the possibility of compromise idea further so that the platform or infrastructure for and resolution, the impact of one, or a handful of very a national dialogue for people from different regions, skilled mediators, and the impact of the power and people on the ground and from civil society could be importance of partnership and trust across and between strengthened. If at that time we had agreed to explore it the parties – as difficult as that may be to generate. One further, a national dialogue could have been set up and of the indicators of this trust was the partnership that established that could work for the country right now developed between the two heads of government and to prevent the reconciliation process from becoming the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement’s delegation, too politicised. New voices on peacemaking What skills do you think are most important for someone working in this field?

Fiona Lortan: I have learned from watching Mr so unreasonable or why they aren’t accepting Annan and the Panel – which is Mr Mbeki, former the deal we put on the table. Mr Mbeki framed it President Buyoya and General Abubakar – that one very well – because he had his own experience in of the key skills (and it’s a skill that I really need to South Africa and a similar experience in Burundi improve dramatically myself) is the ability to really – in the following terms: one needs to understand listen to the parties. Mr Mbeki put it nicely two what the parties’ fears are. That’s the only way to weeks ago when we had a press conference after really help mediation; understanding the fears that the last round of negotiations: it’s an ability to truly make it difficult for them to move in a direction you put yourself in the shoes of the party. Sometimes want them to. It’s only once you really understand we get frustrated about why the parties are being these fears that you can begin to address them. For Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015 31 example, the government in Khartoum accepted the being impartial? We cannot be neutral about basic most difficult demand they could have, which was issues. If the rights of half the population are ignored, to let the South go. So for them, in a sense they we – especially as international actors – cannot remain can’t make any more concessions because they silent and hide under the cloak of cultural relativism. The made the biggest concession a state can make. skills – I think that the ability to be empathetic, to see You need to understand this from their point of view the world from the perspective of different stakeholders and to reassure them that by letting the South go is important, as is the ability to connect with them on the rest of their territory would be respected – their a human level. It’s one thing to go into a thematic territorial integrity. This shouldn’t be the start of a conversation about power sharing or whether a state further breakup of the country. should be Islamic or federal. And the South, this is a newly It’s something else entirely to emerged country that ever look at the person and realise since the independence of they’ve been through twenty Sudan was in war. And now years of war. I’d also like us to it is expected to enter into I have learned from talk more about ‘responsibility friendly relations with what it sharing’ not just power sharing. sees as a regime that for so watching Mr Annan and I’ve learnt this from women in many years tried to keep the war zones. They understand South down and oppress it. the Panel that one of the power, but they also focus on So for the Southern Sudanese, care and responsibility in their the most important thing is key skills is the ability to communities. to be respected as a state. These are the types of fears really listen to the parties. David Mozersky: I think being that you then need to address. a good listener and having It’s only really by listening to good analytical skills… having them dutifully and being able a deep enough contextual to understand what motivates understanding of what may them that you can begin to address these issues. be behind the formal positions of the parties. These For me, that is a key mediation skill and something qualities help to more easily identify where there may to apply in every single situation. be room for compromise or overlap.

Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini: What I value most, and Theerada Suphaphong: I think the most important I don’t know how much it is considered, is when thing is communication skills which includes listening. mediators carry out their work on the basis of core When you have an open mind, then you’re able to principles and a value-based approach to mediation. capture the essence of what people say and see We claim that being impartial is important, but if we what the possibilities are for finding a solution or a exclude the voices of nonviolent stakeholders, are we way forward. New voices on peacemaking What would you consider a success in a mediation process and what are the limits of mediation?

Fiona Lortan: It’s difficult to know what is a success very high levels of underdevelopment and inequality, in mediation. This is a question that we have discussed and suffering from the resource curse. Even when many, many times and I think that answering your there is an agreement signed, we see very often that second question is the only way to answer the first these countries relapse into conflict a few years down question. The mediator can only help the parties reach a the line. So to talk about success… is finding an particular goal, but ultimately it’s up to the parties to do agreement a measure of success? Is five years of peace it. They’re the ones who must make the decision to go a measure of success? If you just take the example for peace or to not go for peace. And you have to help of Sudan, they had six years of more or less peace them to realise that this is what they should be aiming following the signing of the CPA, but at the moment for. But at the end of the day, no mediator can actually relations between Sudan and South Sudan are still force it onto them. We have seen many agreements that very strained. You can say that signing the CPA was parties have been forced to sign. Those agreements a success, but what agreements tend to do generally cannot hold because it’s up to the governments and is push some of the difficult decisions to the future, those who are at the negotiation table. This issue of for example regarding Abyei. So how do you measure success is also very difficult because you see research success? For many years Zimbabwe seemed to be which shows that even when there is political will on the success story in Africa, but today of course you the part of the parties to sign an agreement, there are wouldn’t say so. Yet many things that have happened so many things which work against them. The fact since 2000 really had a genesis in the nature of the that they are almost invariably very poor countries with peace agreement that was negotiated in Lancaster 32 Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015

House. The issue of the redistribution of land is one of a necessary requirement. The second thing I would the key problems of Zimbabwe after 2000, because in say would be the beginning of, or the development a sense the government’s hands were tied; they were of, trust or at least a common understanding of the not allowed to address these issues, but had to in the issues and identification of possible solutions among end. So the measurement of success is very difficult the participants – and then, ideally, agreement on some and controversial and I wouldn’t want to be the one to of the core issues. I think there are, in the conflicts I’ve decide whether this has been a success or that has worked in one way or another, there are always huge been a failure. things happening outside of the negotiation room. So the negotiations themselves are always dependent Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini: That’s a really good on the external context, whether that is the political question. I think a successful mediation process is one dynamics of the day, whether that’s internal dynamics that has been able to stop the violence, and develop within one or both or more parties, or whether that a shared vision for the future. It’s one that draws in the is how things are going on in the battlefield at that voices of multiple stakeholders time. There are a lot of external – whether it’s women, groups variables that need to be taken that are armed, the government, into account and ideally line up and other civic actors – and for there to even be a chance starts to dispel past fears and for successful mediation or a mistrust, and focus on the successful outcome from a common ground, weaving Mediation does not help particular round of talks. I think together a vision of what the key some of those variables can priorities are or what the future when it forces people in take control of the mediation should hold. When you have process and sometimes even an inclusive process where all hostile roles to come to an of the negotiators. relevant people are part of the agreement, based on an decision-making, they can see Theerada Suphaphong: the compromises that each has erroneous assumption that Success can be achieved to make. They can also hear the when stakeholders in conflicts other’s experiences and fears. they have already established can act according to the The human dimension is vital agreements and promises to finding the solution. Now the requisite trust. made in meetings to the other having said that, you can have side of the room; when those things written on paper that look actions change the orientation fantastic, but peace on paper is of the conflict, especially when it a piece of paper. The mediation comes to regression of violence process can only take you so or saving lives. It also depends far. The implementation becomes the next stage of on people’s mindsets and attitudes. Mediation does transforming that piece of paper into something real. So not help when it forces people in hostile roles to come I think that’s a limitation of mediation. But I also believe to an agreement, based on an erroneous assumption that if you have a process that’s been inclusive, that that they have already established the requisite trust. has taken its time and has given everyone a sense of Effective mediation is about sequencing and assessing buy-in, then the chances of proper implementation go situations as well as creating new options. It cannot be up because more people are invested in bringing it to forced. For example, the conflict at the national level in life and hopefully fending off spoilers. Thailand is critical at the moment because there’s no transparency. There’s no trust or consensus being built David Mozersky: I would say, with the caveat that it all on issues and conciliation efforts are really politicised. depends on the situation… at a minimum a success is It’s very difficult to bring stakeholders together in to keep the parties talking. If nothing else, the process dialogue when there is a lack of reconciliation. A limit New voices on peacemaking should be self-sustaining or should provide the ground of mediation is that many people do not know how to for continued discussion. So that’s sort of a low bar but mediate and when it’s not done well it can go wrong.

Have new technologies and the accelerated pace of information sharing changed the way peacemaking processes work – for example by facilitating more transparency through the internet and social media?

Fiona Lortan: On the one hand it has made it more it also makes it easier for those who do not have an difficult for those who are at the negotiating table to interest in reaching peaceful negotiated settlement ignore the demands of the people that they purport to mobilise support against those sitting at the to represent. But it’s a double edged sword because negotiating table. So I think on balance it might not Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015 33 be the case that there’s any change. Certainly in the disseminate and share information more rapidly, which case of the Sudanese negotiations, it has complicated is a good thing… this can include the dissemination the process and we are seeing it now… we find with of an update on what’s been agreed or feedback to the agreement that was reached a few weeks ago, various constituencies of what’s being discussed. that there are certain parties in both countries who are The flipside of that is that it also provides space for opposed to it – so they speak in the mosques, they spoilers or hardline voices to mobilise dissent, mobilise speak in the press, and they speak in the churches opposition and mobilise against what’s happened in the against these agreements. negotiation room. So it’s not something that is regulated in any way and it can go both ways. Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini: Yes, and I think that formal peacemaking hasn’t caught up with it… Theerada Suphaphong: When people see there is a tendency for peacemaking to still be very information about peace processes in the news, it exclusive, very secret, very quiet. You actually want creates transparency and inclusiveness. Stakeholders to be inclusive and transparent or people in the public sphere with an element of ‘noisy feel they are part of processes diplomacy’. I don’t think we and can learn from them. They have grasped that or been able learn that peace processes to adequately use strategic exist and that it’s possible to communication to the benefit find solutions. It can have either of peacemaking. This past We have stayed in the a positive or negative impact on year with the Arab revolutions, the process. It depends on the all sorts of new voices are comfort zone of dealing stage, sensitivity and context emerging, making demands with the middle-aged and of the process. The big positive and using social media to in information sharing is that convene. They have the power elderly men in suits. it fosters inclusiveness and to bring about the beginnings of public education in situations revolution in various countries where I am sure people or motivate social movements don’t otherwise have much and yet, from a peacemaking experience or knowledge standpoint, we have not been of what peace processes able to engage with these new movements effectively. are. If there is information from the media or social We have stayed in the comfort zone of dealing with media about what’s going on and people develop the middle-aged and elderly men in suits. The young, opinions, or if they learn that there are people out the women, minorities – they were everywhere across there trying to find solutions, I think that’s positive. And the region – who started it all, are absent. We let if diverse public opinions towards important issues that happen because we’re stuck in old fashioned proliferate, then I think that’s very positive. But on the methods of mediation. We haven’t figured out how negative side, there are some processes that are still to be fully inclusive without fear. at the stage of trust-building, for example, or at an

exploratory stage at which relevant interlocutors are New voices on peacemaking David Mozersky: Well hopefully, but I’m not sure I can still being identified. Allowing information to leak out give you an intelligent answer as to how, yet. I think could be divisive and could become damaging to the one thing that has clearly happened is the ability to process at that stage. 34 Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015 Life as a mediator and a peace process actor

A frank conversation with Ashraf Ghani, Haile Menkerios, George Mitchell, Joyce Neu and Kieran Prendergast, with comments and reflections from Mohagher Iqbal and Neles Tebay 2011

Ashraf Ghani Haile Menkerios George Mitchell H.E. Dr Mohammad Ashraf Ghani Ambassador Menkerios is currently Senator George Mitchell served as Ahmadzai is the President of the Islamic serving as Special Representative of the US Special Envoy to the Middle East Republic of Afghanistan since 2014. UN Secretary-General and head of the and before that as Chairman of peace Following the fall of the Taliban in 2001, he UN Office to the African Union, as well negotiations in Northern Ireland, which participated in the negotiations of the Bonn as Special Envoy for Sudan and South resulted in the 1998 Good Friday Agreement as Special Advisor to Lakhdar Sudan. Prior to this, he headed the UN Agreement. A former Federal Judge Brahimi, then Special Representative Mission in Sudan and was Deputy UN and Majority Leader of the US Senate, of the UN Secretary-General. He later Special Representative for the Democratic he most recently served for several advised interim President Karzai and Republic of Congo. At headquarters, he years as Chairman of DLA Piper, where served as Finance Minister and Chairman served as Assistant Secretary-General for he is now Chairman Emeritus. In 2008 Life as a mediator and a peace process actor Life as a mediator and peace process of the commission managing the transition Political Affairs and Director of the Africa Time Magazine described him as one from foreign to national troops. Prior to 1 Division in the Department of Political of the 100 Most Influential People in the returning to Afghanistan, Ashraf Ghani Affairs. Ambassador Menkerios has world. Senator Mitchell is the author of was a scholar in political science and extensive mediation experience across five books, the most recent being The anthropology in the United States and Africa including in Zimbabwe, Madagascar Negotiator: Reflections on an American worked at the World Bank. and the Horn of Africa. Life (2015). Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015 35

Joyce Neu Kieran Prendergast Dr Joyce Neu is the founder and Sir Kieran Prendergast is a Senior Adviser Senior Associate of Facilitating Peace, to the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue. a consulting network. She has worked He was Under-Secretary-General for as a conflict analyst, gender advisor, Political Affairs at the UN from 1997 until mediator, and facilitator for the Carter his retirement in 2006. There, he provided Center and the Joan B. Kroc Institute policy advice to the Secretary-General on for Peace and Justice at the University diplomatic issues and on the prevention, of San Diego, and continues this work containment and resolution of conflict in for intergovernmental, governmental, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, and nongovernmental organizations at Burundi, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel-Palestine, Facilitating Peace. She has taught at Cyprus, Guatemala, Nepal and Timor several universities and has published Leste. Before this, he was a British career on conflict resolution, peacemaking, diplomat for more than thirty years, including and negotiation. She was the first Team Ambassador to Turkey, High Commissioner Leader of the UN’s Standby Team of to Zimbabwe and Kenya, and Head of the Mediation Experts. Southern African Department. Life as a mediator and peace process actor

Mohagher Iqbal Neles Tebay Hon. Mohagher Iqbal obtained both Father Dr Neles Tebay started working his Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees for peace in Papua in 1999. He has in Political Science from the Manuel L. been a member of the Interfaith Quezon University in the Philippines. Forum for Religious Leaders in Papua He served the Moro National Liberation (FKPPA) since 2009 and a member Front and the Moro Islamic Liberation of the Ecumenical Fellowship of Front (MILF) in various capacities. Churches in Papua (PGGP) since Currently, he is a member of the MILF 2008. He has been the co-founder Central Committee, sitting as chair and Coordinator of the Papua Peace of its Committee on Information, as Network created in 2010 to promote well as Chair of its Peace Negotiating dialogue between the Government Panel since July 2003, thus serving as of and the Indigenous chief negotiator in the peace talks with Papuans. Father Dr Tebay now plays the Philippine government. He was a bridging role among the Papuans, nominated by the MILF as head of the and between the Papuans and the Bangsamoro Transition Commission. Government of Indonesia. 36 Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015

How did you become a peacemaker?

Ashraf Ghani: I was drawn into the field after 9/11. On the arms and ultimately became Chairman of the three- day of 9/11, I wrote the outline of a plan for Afghanistan’s member International Commission, which participated future and then quit my job at the World Bank. I served first in the peace negotiations. So there was no intention or as a Special Advisor to the Special Representative of the purpose on my part to engage in such activities. UN Secretary-General to Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi, as part of a group of four advisors. Then they asked me Joyce Neu: The first thing that comes to mind is to serve as Special Advisor to President Karzai’s interim an incident while I was a Peace Corps Volunteer in government for putting the Bonn Agreement together, Senegal. I encountered an elderly woman on a street in order to bring peace to Afghanistan. I focused on in a town I was visiting and I asked for directions to the outlining a peace agreement. This was not a classic post office. She responded to my question with ‘hello’. I peace agreement, because asked again, and she again said there were not just two sides to ‘hello’. It finally occurred to me the conflict, but a post-regime that I had not gone through the change agreement that needed greeting ritual and that she was to create a legitimate state. negotiating the politeness […] And we came with a phased she wanted to see before she approach to the restoration of People do not go to war for no would answer my question. full legitimacy, beginning with a reason. Mediators therefore That negotiation over a social not fully representative group of interaction has stayed with me people, in order to end up with a need to understand the root all these years. It taught me structure that would have public a lesson: no matter who you legitimacy within a three year causes and be committed to interact with, you need to treat period. people with dignity and respect, their resolution. whether it is a head of state or a Haile Menkerios: I have had market lady on the street. That a lifelong engagement in efforts negotiation on the street was to resolve conflicts but I started [about] so much more than […] with the worst aspect: war – win the post office. the war and dictate the peace. I actively participated in the Eritrean liberation struggle Neles Tebay: I have not deliberately chosen this role for almost twenty years. Later on, I was involved in the but grew into it. Together with a network of inside negotiations between Eritrea and Ethiopia and worked facilitators, the Papua Peace Network, I create space for as Special Envoy in Somalia. It was that experience, of Papuans to gather and air grievances and aspirations witnessing the horrendous human and material cost of as well as to explain the concept of dialogue. war, that led to my interest to look for ways to resolve conflicts through peaceful means. Kieran Prendergast: In my diplomatic service career, I was involved in a number of situations which George Mitchell: I became involved through accident. required peacemaking. For example, I was involved in When I retired from the United States Senate in 1995, implementing the Lancaster House Agreement, which President Clinton asked me if I would go to Northern ended the Unilateral Declaration of Independence and Ireland for a brief period, to help in organising economic transformed Rhodesia into Zimbabwe. I was in Kenya investment and assistance, and underpin the peace for the very delicate transition from single party rule to process which was just at the beginning. I did so a multiparty system. And I was at the United Nations in and, as the saying goes, one thing led to another. I New York, for eight and a half years as Under-Secretary- was asked to perform an assignment for the British General for Political Affairs, where the main plank of my and Irish governments in connection with paramilitary job was to promote the peaceful resolution of conflict.

Do you have a role model? Who inspires you?

Ashraf Ghani: The people. Peace is one of the over two decades is something that connects one deepest aspirations of people who have endured deeply to the people’s wishes and aspirations. And as conflict. My aspiration in terms of the need for peace a peacemaker, of course Lakhdar Brahimi has been comes from conflict. And the impact of conflict on my a very important reference on my views of what a Life as a mediator and a peace process actor Life as a mediator and peace process family life is significant because my wife is Lebanese dedicated peacemaker is. and I am Afghan, and we have two American children. To be able to deal with two children growing up in the Haile Menkerios: My inspiration comes from people middle of two invaded countries, in two wars raging who are committed to principles, who do not forget Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015 37 that there are issues which need to be resolved. attention was so focused on his interlocutor that even People do not go to war for no reason. Mediators had there been explosions going on, Carter would not therefore need to understand the root causes and be have moved. I might not agree with all of the things committed to their resolution. One can think of high he has done in mediation but I think that, in terms of models like Mandela who spent an entire lifetime with his skills as a mediator, he is really quite extraordinary. all the reasons one could think of for continuing to fight and yet chose to resolve issues peacefully through Kieran Prendergast: I have been lucky to observe dialogue and compromise. many great men. It was a special privilege to work with on Burundi, and to see the Joyce Neu: It is an ambivalent role model but it is great calm and authority that he brought. I thought Jimmy Carter. Because I worked so closely with him that Kofi Annan, particularly in the first seven years for nine years, I saw the way he listened to people of his term as Secretary-General, was very bold in and how calm and non-judgemental he was. People overruling cautious advice, pushing ahead towards seemed to feel very comfortable talking to him. His peacemaking.

What should be the objective of a peace process, and what can be expected of mediation?

Haile Menkerios: The objective of any peace process But your aim is obviously higher. The goal is to should be to have conflicting parties recognise their stop the violence, even if stopping the violence costs in fighting and arrive at a solution through peaceful is temporary with a ceasefire agreement. Even negotiation and compromise that maximises their gains short of a peace agreement, securing the release given the costs. Violent conflicts have a tremendous of prisoners or saving lives in any fashion is some cost, human and material. People have to weigh kind of success. Naturally the ultimate goal of these costs, and recognise the benefits of negotiated mediation is to go for a sustainable and just solutions, to agree to negotiate. If you can convince peace agreement that leads to the development of conflicting parties that they can democratic institutions, but achieve their realistic objectives that doesn’t happen often. better through peaceful means, I believe you have achieved a Mohagher Iqbal: The successful mediation. real objective is problem- solving. If the objective of George Mitchell: By definition Naturally the ultimate goal the peace process is just the objective of a peace to manage the problem, process should be peace, if of mediation is to go for a it is useless… the fear at all possible. Mediation may sustainable and just peace things will become worse is or may not be able to play always there. Personally, I a role, depending upon the agreement that leads to the believe that good mediation circumstances. I think the most happens when the mediator

important question is: how does development of democratic takes a position by siding Life as a mediator and peace process actor one define peace? Some would on the side of truth and define it as the mere absence institutions, but that letting the guilty comply with of violent conflict, others would his commitment. Ending include other factors such as doesn’t happen often. violence is meaningless if opportunity and hope for the there is no justice instituted people affected. But I think that, and firmly in place. in considering these matters, it is very difficult to generalise. A Kieran Prendergast: All first prerequisite is to end the violence and to bring depends on the individual about a measure of stability and security. situation. First off, whether you think you are at a stage where it can only be managed not solved. Neles Tebay: The main goal is to create a structural And depending on the dynamics of the situation, and institutional environment which allows people to it may be entirely right to understand that you are live in peace. This goal can only be achieved through a managing it and that it is not going to be solvable dialogue process that results in a joint agreement which at the moment, no matter how hard you try. Some is thoroughly implemented. situations are ripe for solution, some are not. But I believe that, even if a situation is not ripe, there are Joyce Neu: The minimum success of mediation always things that you can try to do to make that would be that the parties agree to keep talking. conflict riper for negotiation leading to a settlement. 38 Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015

When is the right time to start talks or mediation and when should they end?

Haile Menkerios: The right time to start would be for prevention are usually minimal because there are when the parties to a conflict reach the conclusion, so many crises. I remember being in Côte d’Ivoire either by themselves or through the assistance of in 2003 for meetings with political parties. It was others, that they cannot achieve their objectives obvious that the situation was dire. It was clear and through violence, or that yet, I don’t think much was achieving them through done about the situation. We violence would be too need to constantly assess the costly. Parties in conflict ‘temperature’ of societies at generally do not reach such risk and offer both unofficial conclusions soon enough, Ideally mediation begins and official consultations and and peacemakers need to good offices. Once an armed engage to convince them of when there are signs of conflict has started, we are the advantages of a negotiated obligated to make every settlement and to minimise trouble. Unfortunately, effort to mediate before using the damage of confrontation. military force. Mediation should be a resources for prevention are continuing service, in differing Kieran Prendergast: It is hard degrees as required, even usually minimal because to generalise. You have to look after agreements are signed there are so many crises. at the situation. You have to until institutional capacities be confident you understand it to resolve conflicts without which is, of course, not always recourse to violence are the case. You always have to adequately in place. ask yourself: are you looking for a transformative solution, George Mitchell: In a general way, you start when where the whole of the problem is dealt with? Or you have some reasonable prospect for a successful are you dealing with an issue of, what I think of conclusion, and you end when you have succeeded as, ‘rotating elites’? I think there is an awful lot of or failed to accomplish that objective. rotating of elites. The trouble is that the international community says: ‘well, ok, we have solved this Joyce Neu: Ideally you should start before there is problem’ without actually looking at the underlying any armed conflict. Ideally mediation begins when issues and the bigger picture, sometimes because there are signs of trouble. Unfortunately, resources the bigger picture is just too complex and difficult.

Have you ever walked away from talks? And under which circumstances would you?

Haile Menkerios: I have been pushed out of talks! George Mitchell: I have not and I would not From 1991 until 1995, I was Special Envoy of the speculate on that. It’s one of those things in life Eritrean Government to Somalia and worked along that I’ll know it when I see it, but there are so many with the Intergovernmental Authority on Development factors involved that it is impossible to make a (IGAD) representatives to mediate between the specific decision until you are actually confronted different factions in Somalia. With so much resistance with the situation. from the parties, it just became impossible to continue and we walked away saying: ‘call us when you need Joyce Neu: I have not walked away from talks but us’. And there was definitely a time earlier when I I have not been engaged in years-long efforts. But felt there was no possibility for negotiation, when yes, I would consider it. As I have gotten either more Eritrea was forcibly annexed by Ethiopia and Ethiopia experienced or older, getting more tolerant in some believed it was possible to maintain its control by ways and less tolerant in others, I would exercise force. I believed there was no other option but to that option now. I have great respect for people who fight, and I joined the Eritrean People’s Liberation recognise when it is time to withdraw, as difficult a Front (EPLF). Almost thirty years from the start, the decision as this is. Ethiopians understood they were unable to crush

Life as a mediator and a peace process actor Life as a mediator and peace process the will of the people of Eritrea. On the contrary, Kieran Prendergast: I certainly have walked away they discovered that continuing fighting was making from offers that were not acceptable, that were them vulnerable to other opponents inside Ethiopia not reputable. I learned when I was dealing with and they offered to negotiate. It was only at that time Apartheid in the late eighties, that it is a terrible that we engaged in negotiations. mistake to say that something is an advance, when Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015 39 it is not. For example in South Africa, the government we, the UN, were given the corresponding authority introduced a tri-cameral system, so three ethnically- to deliver on those responsibilities. based parliaments. That was a change but it was not an advance. You also have to be very, very wary Neles Tebay: In my opinion it is important for about being invited into a situation where they want both parties to establish their Best Alternative to to use you as some sort of fig leaf, and say: ‘Look! We a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) for each issue have brought in international involvement!’ without discussed before mediation starts. BATNAs serve giving you the power to deal with the situation. In as benchmarks deciding whether outcomes are Iraq, for example, when I was in the UN, my mantra acceptable or not; in the latter case there might be was that we should not accept responsibility unless a need to walk away.

What do you think is the most unhelpful assumption many peacemakers/ mediators make?

Haile Menkerios: Sometimes mediators forget that mistake to believe that a success in one effort can the perceptions of the parties in conflict are very automatically be transferred to another. I think one important. The temptation to propose an already must have inexhaustible patience and a willingness packaged solution is, I think, very unhelpful. One may to listen. And I think it would be a mistake for any think: this is a rational solution and the parties should mediator to enter [a process] with too short a adopt it. Conflict parties like timeframe. At the same time, to believe that any proposal in all of these processes there has taken into consideration is a tremendous amount of their position, their interests repetition. The parties tend and proposals. Mediators to repeat themselves often have, thus, to listen to the and figuring out the right time parties and ask for the parties’ Sometimes mediators forget to bring that to a conclusion proposals as a start. In the is an important judgement end, the mediators may not that the perceptions of the call by the mediator. It is a even include what the parties judgement call informed by presented, but the parties will parties in conflict are very the specific circumstances feel they have been listened of that situation that can’t be to and that what is finally important. The temptation made in the abstract. proposed has considered their position. Another dangerous to propose an already Joyce Neu: I think it is assumption is that peace can packaged solution is, I unhelpful to assume that easily be achieved once the mediators understand or parties sign a deal. Some think, very unhelpful. know the conflict and that processes continue for a long they don’t need to hear time and there is a reason for from the people affected.

this. It is very important to have Peacemakers need to make Life as a mediator and peace process actor confidence-building measures a point of hearing from civil between the parties; this often society, women, youth and determines whether there will other groups who are not be commitment to implementing any agreement. usually well represented by the elites at the peace The conflicting parties need to fully understand and table. I was recently in the Central African Republic accept the agreement as their own. where I met with political leaders as well as the union of market women and the union of taxi and bus Mohagher Iqbal: A bad referee will always result in drivers. The taxi and bus drivers have the power to a bad game; there will be punching, elbowing etc. literally stop the entire country from moving and they He can also derail the process, not knowing when have used this power to negotiate more equitable to anchor the boat or to slow down if the waves treatment by the government. I think it is helpful to get bigger. hear these different viewpoints to learn where the points of leverage are with the parties and who your George Mitchell: I honestly don’t know how other allies are outside the room, who will be the ones to mediations have been conducted, other than just actually implement an agreement. It also helps to reading about them and seeing the results. I do let the parties know that you are not relying solely think that each situation is unique and I think it is a on their perspective of the conflict. 40 Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015

What is the most striking mistake that you have made? What will you do differently the next time around?

Ashraf Ghani: It is probably not to be realistic with Joyce Neu: Generically, one key mistake was being regard to how much time transformation requires, and rushed. This was the downside of representing hoping for structural change within periods that were President Carter and the reality of many Track I efforts. not realistic. This is again the question of the relationship Carter needed to be able to report to other people between ambition, on the one hand, and feasibility on about what was happening so he did not want me to the other. Ambition without feasibility and credibility be out in the field for weeks and weeks. My schedule is not sufficient. When I began working in the field of was therefore often rushed; I did not learn enough or conflict resolution, I did not have the full view of the hear enough points of view and my work was therefore canvas that subsequent studies have revealed. The UN not as well informed as it might have been. After leaving lacked a Lessons Learnt Unit at the time, so that we the Carter Center, I was better able to schedule my time repeated old mistakes in our daily work. The conditions and spent more time in-country. under which we were working in 2001 were fairly different from Kieran Prendergast: First of today’s conditions, as structures all you are requiring me to admit have been put into place that that I made a mistake [laughs], provide for internal learning. In which I am sure I have. I think 2001, the lessons were largely I think mediators should mediators should be willing to in the heads of individuals and say ‘no’ more often, in particular had not been consolidated into be willing to say ‘no’ more when things are put to them with core lessons. In the absence no hope of success. When I was of those, many lessons that often, in particular when new in the UN, we were required we could have learnt from by the General Assembly to do past experiences were not things are put to them with a report on Israeli settlements systematically incorporated. in East Jerusalem in an area no hope of success. which the Arabs call Jebal Abu Haile Menkerios: There are Ghneim and the Israelis call Har too many to remember one Homa. So I approached the outstanding one! Maybe one Israelis and said that we would stands out: to fail to understand like to visit and make a direct that mediation is a continuing effort. Arrangements need assessment. We had quite prolonged negotiations but to be made for continuous and follow-on mediation I said that we would have to report the facts as we saw on differences that do arise during the implementation them, with no conditions and compromise. In the end phase. Simply because people do agree on an overall of what I thought was a good faith negotiation, the solution does not mean that all the details have been Israelis said no, on that basis they did not want to go worked out; mistrust […] also persists. Many times, ahead. One could argue that it was a mistake to be so mediators just want to get an agreement signed and tough on them because we could have visited had we call it done and go home. I think we did that in the been willing to compromise. But I did not think that the Democratic Republic of Congo case, and had to come integrity of this UN process would allow us to accept back later after a second crisis. these restrictions.

Is it the responsibility of the mediator to include gender-related issues in the talks? What are the challenges to putting these issues on the table?

Ashraf Ghani: Historically, the group that has suffered should best be addressed. They tend to include what most from the conflicts of the late 20th century are has been included in peace agreements before, without women. The systematic abuse of women in a number reflecting on other topics relevant to making the peace of these conflicts has very few historical precedents agreement sustainable, such as gender. Such issues in previous years. But, from a perspective of both require a systematic approach and should not be dealt peace and justice, any large group who has been with on an ad-hoc basis during peace negotiations. In denied rights and has been subject to injustice must addition, one needs to compare the text of the peace receive attention. When identity politics becomes a agreements and the reality of implementation, which Life as a mediator and a peace process actor Life as a mediator and peace process driver of inequality and a driver of conflict, one must are two different worlds. If you examine one of the most equally address the question of gender. The issue is important peace agreements in terms of democratic that peacemakers do not really think about issues that values, it is Cambodia. Everything conceivable should be included in peace agreements and how they regarding rights was put into the Cambodian peace Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015 41 agreement. The implementation of this agreement that a mediator act with humility, that the process is shows a huge gap between the people’s aspirations about the parties not about him or her. I can, and do, and the reality upon implementation. So here again, the and have, made many suggestions, many proposals, issue is how to deal with the underlying causes of the but all in the context of the parties themselves having conflict. A lot of these conflicts require a generational ownership of the process. time period to heal and to overcome. Yet the attention of the international community lasts usually for five years Joyce Neu: The answer has to be yes. During the and then it declines and shifts to other issues. The way talks you normally discuss issues of governance or the international community deals with the fundamental security and those could not be more of a gender issue issues of peacemaking is largely problematic. because they affect the lives of citizens. So it means that women and men need to be included. It is the Haile Menkerios: Mediators responsibility of the mediator have a major role in suggesting to raise the issue of inclusivity to conflicting parties what is at in peace talks. It is more than stake and which issues need just the participation of women. to be addressed to prevent When you see agreements and the continuation of conflict mediation in societies where you and suffering. Mediators have subjugated groups and should identify what the root The most successful mediators have not raised the causes are and use other issue of how the agreement will experiences to suggest some mediator is one able to affect those groups, including possible solutions. While it is encourage the parties but women and children, you are the responsibility of the parties not laying the foundation for a to address the issues, it is the not dictate to them; to sustainable or just agreement. role of the mediators to remind, to suggest, to propose what persuade them without Kieran Prendergast: Very agendas need to be included; often the parties are men, and one set of these are gender- controlling them. very often they are not really related issues. It is also important conscious of gender issues, and to suggest the inclusion of key they need to be reminded that stakeholders in the negotiation these are important issues. At process – women for one. This the same time I think we have is not always easy to ensure, to be quite careful when we try however, as those who make wars (invariably men) to impose our values on others, there are some values don’t often want to include anyone outside of them. that are universal and some values that are cultural, or specific to situations. I think we should stand up George Mitchell: Keep in mind that mediation is a and defend universal values, but we should be quite voluntary process, as opposed to arbitration. The careful not to impose our cultural views on other people. most successful mediator is one able to encourage Because it does not actually help make the peace. the parties but not dictate to them; to persuade them without controlling them; and to make clear to them that Mohagher Iqbal: Gender is the responsibility of those they have ownership of the process and of the result. who raise it. In the MILF, this is not an issue because Life as a mediator and peace process actor And if that is done, then the mediator can help to get we are inclusive and we look at the interests of the issues on the agenda. But I have never felt that I was entire Bangsamoro people, even without the physical in a position to dictate to the parties. It is important presence of women in the panel.

How are the decisions made on which stakeholders are included at the main negotiation table and who is engaged on the periphery?

Ashraf Ghani: The key issue is not who is at the actually has rewarded the most serious offenders negotiation table in the first place. The key issue is with positions of authority. The presence of certain whether you are going to freeze stakeholders into those stakeholders at the table is dictated by the nature of who were at the table at first and those who were not. the negative power they hold to return to violence and The key advantage of the way that we proceeded in including them in the negotiations can prevent their Afghanistan was that the size of the table was radically return to violence. However, they should not remain the widened during the three years of the peace process. only parties at the negotiation table, as this would lay But a lot of peace agreements that I have seen have the foundation for the next conflict. Instead, we have to made the critical mistake of elevating the parties to the go from peacemaking to state-building, which ensures conflict as the sole decision-makers. This approach legitimate and thus sustainable structures. 42 Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015

Haile Menkerios: Unfortunately, it is those who are members or women into the talks. I consulted with part of the problem, part of the conflict, that negotiate people outside of the mediation, but did not think to ask solutions. In the interest of stopping the violence other the parties to expand to include women and/or youth stakeholders, who may not have participated in the in their delegations or to have them as observers to the conflict or were its victims, are generally left aside or are process. One exception was during the talks between peripherally involved and yet these are often the groups/ the Government of Uganda and the Government of sectors that have fundamental stakes in the solutions Sudan, which largely dealt with the issue of Northern and play key roles in their implementation. Uganda and the Lord’s Resistance Army. I noted to the head of the Ugandan negotiating team that he did George Mitchell: Again, that is very specific to the not have anyone from Northern Uganda on his team. situation in which one is involved. It’s really impossible For the next meeting, he added two members from to define how such a decision the North. But I neglected to is made except that, in my raise the issue of women. Now, view, it ought to be as inclusive without any doubt, I would also as possible. Let me give a raise the issue of the inclusion specific example, which also of women. Mediators, especially relates to the question on Track I mediators, need to make gender issues. In Northern The key issue is whether clear that they are upholding UN Ireland, the British government you are going to freeze Security Council Resolution and the Irish government and 1325 and have expectations the international team which I stakeholders into those who that the delegations will have headed, worked up a process gender parity. which, through elections, were at the table at first and was able to broaden and Kieran Prendergast: This is diversify the composition of the those who were not. an important issue. One has to negotiators. It was not an overt be very conscious about this effort to include women but a because the more stakeholders women’s party, the Northern are directly at the table […] Ireland Women’s Coalition was the less likely you are to get created, ran in the elections, got a result. You are in a difficult enough votes to be a representative at the table and place, in a situation when you have to decide who made a very important contribution to the process. The to include and who to leave out. For example in approach was not intended or designated exclusively Somalia, which is still a deeply clan-based society, to raise gender issues but it had that effect in a very the wrecking potential of even very small sub-sub- positive way. clans is considerable and you have to find a way – even though it’s extremely unwieldy and very time Joyce Neu: I have been reading the literature on conflict consuming and very expensive – to make sure that resolution, negotiation and mediation for many years – every single grouping is somehow represented in about the need for inclusivity and participation in talks. the negotiations and also gets something out of the Yet, when I was leading Track II mediation efforts in the negotiations. And I met Somalis who said that if they late 1990s, it was still just the parties to the conflict in are not included, they will sabotage any agreement. the room – it did not occur to me to bring civil society They mean it and they can do it.

Has your view on mediation and your negotiation/mediation style changed over the years?

Haile Menkerios: Oh yes! I think you always begin with end result. This is something one learns with time wanting shortcuts, quick fixes. You think that, given and experience, and of course I have been constantly your understanding of the problem, it is not difficult learning and adapting. to propose a rational solution; the parties will see it is a win-win situation and accept it. Many agreements George Mitchell: I think it is very important that collapse within a very short time simply because the mediator not be the focus of the activity but that the parties have not themselves clearly weighed the the parties themselves be the principals and have options before agreeing on the best/least costly one. ownership of the process – and I haven’t wavered from that position. I think a mediator is most effective in Life as a mediator and a peace process actor Life as a mediator and peace process The solution reached must be their solution, their success. Commitment to implementation is based on advancing his or her ideas if he or she can create the this. I think a successful mediator is one who assists conditions in which the parties are genuinely open and the parties to adopt a certain solution but, at the end, receptive to suggestions and want to bring the conflict steps aside and makes sure that the parties own the to a successful conclusion. Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015 43

Joyce Neu: I think in some ways my role in mediation Ashraf Ghani: Yes. If you follow the peace has changed. When I was mediating, I was usually agreements, they are rich in political theory. Some of the only woman in the room but I never raised gender them constitute important articulations of views on issues. I was a woman but I was not there because I state-society relationships. The Latin American peace was a woman. I was there because someone thought I agreements of the 1990s, for instance, were profoundly had the skills to be there. Now I think I would certainly significant in terms of articulating how abusive states approach it differently, in the sense that I realise must be turned into functioning states that focus that being a woman mediator was an advantage. It on the people’s needs and aspirations. The need helped to buy trust from the parties who tended to for alignment between peacemaking and economic be men and, I think, were less threatened by meeting approaches that would sustain and underwrite that a woman because it was a bit out of the ordinary. I peacemaking process is becoming clear. Today there is think that now, being a bit older a body of literature and a group with more experience, I would of practitioners that focus on try to more effectively exploit this fundamental issue, on the whatever leverage I would bring global and regional level. So to the mediation and see to it overall the trend is positive. This that more voices were heard at is a field where understanding the table. has usually been two steps The drivers of conflict behind the complex realities. Kieran Prendergast: I am and their complex The drivers of conflict and their sorry to say that, when I was in complex interconnections are my thirties as a young delegate interconnections are not not reflected in institutional at the UN in New York I thought mechanisms to deal with primarily in terms of procedures reflected in institutional them. There is a wide and resolutions. I did not think acknowledgement that the at all about the actual substance mechanisms to deal UN is widely dysfunctional. because it was in the middle of Regional cooperative the and there was a with them. arrangements are important very strict limit to what could be developments, but there are achieved through the UN at that limits to their effectiveness. time. As I got older and saw for In this kind of context, and myself the costs of conflict and particularly after the financial the human suffering, my focus crisis of 2008, getting state shifted. I also learnt, particularly when I was a diplomat in attention to conflict management and peacebuilding Africa, that personal relationships very often transcend is an uphill battle. There is a degree of exhaustion more objective criteria. At the Centre for Humanitarian from rich countries to deal with the problems of the Dialogue (HD), personal relationships and respect are poor countries. And the absence of any serious absolutely key. If the parties feel like you respect them, breakthrough makes people sceptical. Also the extent they may not do what you want them to do, but they will to which global networks of civil society can focus on listen to you, and they may be influenced by it. If they conflicts in poor countries is limited, as the struggles feel like you are treating them with disdain, arrogance of distribution have shifted to the heart of the OECD or lack of respect, they will neither listen to you nor do countries. It is going to require a lot more effectiveness, Life as a mediator and peace process actor what you want them to do. So in a way: you can be too a lot more credibility of delivery and a new generation young and too keen, too thrusting, and there are large of leadership to make sure that peacemaking is kept areas of the world where that does not work. at the forefront of the international agenda. 44 Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015 On being a peacemaker

A frank conversation with Said Djinnit, Graça Machel and Hassan Wirajuda 2010

Said Djinnit Graça Machel Hassan Wirajuda Ambassador Said Djinnit is the Special Dame Graça is an international Dr Hassan Wirajuda is a member of the Envoy of the UN Secretary-General for advocate for women’s and children’s Council of Presidential Advisors and the Great Lakes region. Prior to this rights. She was the first Minister of a former Foreign Minister of Indonesia appointment, he headed the UN Office Education and Culture in Mozambique, (2001–2009). As Director-General of for West Africa in Dakar, and was the where she later created the Foundation Political Affairs in the Ministry of Foreign International Facilitator of the inter- for Community Development. As an Affairs (2000–2001), he conducted the Guinean dialogue in 2013. Before joining independent expert on the impact dialogue between the Government of the UN, Ambassador Djinnit served as of armed conflict on children, she Indonesia and the Free Aceh Movement Commissioner for Peace and Security authored in 1994 the Machel Report (GAM). In 1993–1996, he also facilitated the at the African Union (AU) and held for UNICEF, and served from 2012 peace talks between the Moro Liberation various positions in the Organisation of to 2013 as a member of the High- Front (MNLF) and the government of the African Unity (OAU), where he supported Level UN Panel on the Post-2015 Philippines, which led to the signing of institutional reform and peace processes Development Agenda. She is a the Final Peace Agreement. He is the across the African continent, and co-founder of The Elders and was editor-in-chief of Strategic Review – The contributed to the deployment of AU a mediator in the Kenya National Indonesian Journal of Leadership, Policy peace missions. Dialogue and Reconciliation Process. and World Affairs. On being a peacemaker Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015 45

How did you become a peacemaker?

Said Djinnit: I became involved in peacemaking the world, and had to witness the impact on children, primarily through my work with the Organisation of on women, on innocent people in a way that touched African Unity. As a chief of staff, I was involved in and changed my life. The best protection is peace, to dealing with conflict situations more generally, and prevent violent conflict from erupting, and not to have to later I became involved in peacemaking more directly deal with its consequences. Once conflict does erupt, because the situations we faced required that. peace has to be sought immediately.

Graça Machel: I did not become a peacemaker Hassan Wirajuda: I became involved as a peacemaker by choice. I am not even sure I am a peacemaker on two occasions. First, as a facilitator of the peace in a formal understanding of what a peacemaker is. talks between the Government of the Philippines and When I was asked to join the the Moro National Liberation team led by Kofi Annan to help Front held between 1993 and find a solution to the crisis in 1996 that led to the signing of Kenya in 2008, I believe it was the Manila Peace Agreement in based on his knowledge of September 1996. In that very my previous involvement and structured process, I acted as experience. Since my youth, I The best protection is peace, the chair of the mixed committee happened to have been part of and the facilitator of the peace political processes searching for to prevent violent conflict talks involving the full panels peace. First, I was fortunate to from erupting, and not of the two conflicting parties. be part of the negotiating team Second, I was tasked by then that led to the end of hostilities to have to deal with its President Aburrahman Wahid between the Mozambique of Indonesia to represent the Liberation Front (FRELIMO) and consequences. Once conflict country at the dialogue process the Portuguese colonial power between the Government of in the liberation struggle at the does erupt, peace has to be Indonesia and the Free Aceh time. Years later, when I was Movement from 2000 to Minister of Education, conflict sought immediately. 2001, which was facilitated by erupted again in Mozambique, the Centre for Humanitarian and I was confronted with a Dialogue (HD). So, I was in fact situation where the schools I in two different capacities: first was responsible for were being as a mediator-facilitator, and destroyed, teachers were being second as the chief delegate of kidnapped, children were being killed or displaced, and one of the two conflicting parties. I was also, between I had no choice but to become involved. Much later, 1995 and 1997, a member of the Indonesian delegation I was asked by the UN Secretary-General to lead a to the tripartite dialogue on the question of East Timor, study on the impact of armed conflict on children in a involving Indonesia and Portugal, facilitated by the UN much broader context. I had to visit countries all over Secretary- General.

Do you have a role model? Who inspires you?

Said Djinnit: To be honest, I was inspired by the also very much inspired by the late President Anwar suffering of the people and by the stupidity ofthe el-Sadat of Egypt, especially by his bold initiatives to situation they found themselves in rather than by a visit Jerusalem in November 1977, and the step he took single individual. In a way, what motivated me in my to initiate a peace process between Israel and Egypt. work was almost a sense of revolt. I got the impression It was sad and ironic that a great peacemaker like him that the people were hostage to problems of leadership was killed by his own people, by those who could not and to problems of governance. I got the sense that accept the peace agreement with Israel that was the you have to release the people from the prison in which result of his bold initiatives. As a junior diplomat, I arrived they have been put by the wrong leaders and the wrong in Egypt for my first posting overseas in November governance systems. Even today, I am inspired by the 1977, and only a week later witnessed the historic visit suffering and the misery of the people that comes from of President Sadat to Jerusalem. I left Egypt at the end poor leadership and institutional structures that do not of my assignment, two months after President Sadat On being a peacemaker function as they should. was assassinated. The whole Camp David process imprinted on my mind the dynamic complexities of Hassan Wirajuda: My role model would be former peace negotiation. Indonesian Foreign Minister, the late Ali Alatas. I am 46 Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015

What should be the objective of a peace process, and what can be expected of mediation?

Said Djinnit: Honestly, for me, a peace process should need to understand the grievances, the frustrations create the conditions for real reconciliation to take and the aspirations of the other side to build bridges place – and I mean durable reconciliation. Mediation of communication. The second point is to establish the is not the end of the story – peace agreements are framework around which this dialogue is to take place. just the beginning. We are often leaving with an If people have been in conflict, they often cannot even impression of unfinished business. More often than establish how to begin a dialogue. Mediation should not, the biggest challenge is the implementation of the help them establish that framework and identify the agreement whereas the goal of the peace process is issues that need to be addressed. The third point merely to create the conditions is to look at the root causes for the national stakeholders which led to the lack or failure to reconcile and take charge of dialogue, but which have to of their own destiny. I do not be addressed and resolved in believe in mediation solving order to lay the foundations so the problems for the people, that it does not happen again. but mediation can and should You are not only dealing However, I strongly believe that be expected to contribute to the framework for dialogue restoring dialogue and to setting with warring parties – needs to change. Successful the parameters of this dialogue there is a nation at stake. mediation needs clarity. Those in a way that enables the people who give the mandate to to solve their problems. We are mediation have to change the only there to facilitate. That rules and the mandate has to is why a mediator should be be much broader. The mandate somebody who has the respect should be very, very clear to of both parties, and who is capable of motivating the indicate that there are more stakeholders in a peace parties and of creating the conditions for them to act process. You are not only dealing with warring parties on and solve the real problems together. – there is a nation at stake. In addition, mediators themselves have to have clarity on how to structure Graça Machel: The first fundamental thing is to stop the participation of what I call the nation. hostilities. Stop the fighting and killings, and get people to drop the arms and sit to talk. Conflict takes place Hassan Wirajuda: A peace process is expected to where dialogue has failed or, in some cases, where reach a final agreement that is acceptable to both dialogue was not even started. Armed conflict is a delegations. But further, and more important, the response to the failure to dialogue. Any mediation takes agreement must equitably address the underlying you back to the basics: let’s sit down and talk. We concerns of both conflicting parties.

If you could change one thing to make your work easier, what would that be? How has your work changed with the growing offer of mediation support?

Said Djinnit: We need nothing. What we need is really help to prevent conflict from erupting. It sounds very for others not to undermine our work. The best thing vague, but I think when people are able to articulate people could do to help me as a mediator is to stop what they want and how they want to participate, you interfering from the sidelines and let me do my work. It create a better environment for dialogue to take place, is disruptive when other stakeholders, whether regional and to find space to solve differences without resorting or international, are busy undermining your action, to conflict. approach and initiatives through direct contact with and pressure on parties to the conflict. It is crucial to Hassan Wirajuda: Media relations. Any negotiator keep the parties focused on the mediation, and not or facilitator in this information age is hard-pressed distract them from the process. to maintain the confidentiality of a peace process. Therefore, maintaining the trust of the parties on Graça Machel: My work life has not changed, but then the one hand, and also communicating the right again I continue to be mostly a social activist rather amount of information to the domestic audience, is than a mediator. In a very modest way, by contributing necessary to gather support for a peace process. to building institutions which allow citizens to express In this information age, the mass media are very themselves, to protect their rights – even to claim their intrusive and keen to know everything about the rights, you are contributing to an environment which will peace process. On being a peacemaker Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015 47

What do you think is the most unhelpful assumption many peacemakers/ mediators make?

Said Djinnit: The most erroneous assumption would consulting and involving the majority of people. be to think that there is a quick fix. We still seem to The victims are left aside and the perpetrators assume that things are easy enough to be fixed in a are being rewarded with positions of power. They few months at most: we accept a mediation job for become respectable in spite of having seized these three months, and then we think we are ready to go positions through violence, simply because we want and do something else. Mediation is a long process. to discourage them from going back to violence. It always turns out to be longer than expected. The Some people in positions of power, I’m terribly sorry actual agreement is one thing, to say, are criminals – and the but then one should be there to victims have to swallow their support the agreement to take pain. This is a real challenge. place in practice. In my opinion, this is why the issue of truth and reconciliation Graça Machel: I think has to go hand-in-hand with the first mistake is not to I think the first mistake is how we restructure mediation understand deeply the society processes. I think truth and in which a conflict is taking not to understand deeply reconciliation has to be given place. The second one is to much more importance. You overemphasise the role of the society in which a have to create space where warring parties; and the third is victims can express their to give guarantees to warring conflict is taking place. feelings. They have to feel that parties for the sake of getting you acknowledge their pain, them to stop fighting, where and that you acknowledge sometimes this undermines their rights. You have to give the interests of those who did them space to become part of not resort to war. When you give prominence to the the society that emerges after the conflict. warring parties at the expense of consulting and involving the majority of people, you are giving them Hassan Wirajuda: It is a necessity for the peacemaker rights to decide on behalf of the others, in essence to maintain strict neutrality between the conflicting rewarding them for having taken up arms. I think parties. Choosing a facilitator therefore is a very crucial mediation actors, generally speaking, put much more starting point, because no country or institution can emphasis on the warring parties at the expense of be a natural mediator or peacemaker.

What is the most striking mistake that you have made? What will you do differently the next time around?

Said Djinnit: This is the most difficult question to did some goof, we say that is the only thing we could ask a mediator. Arguably the biggest problem of do. We always try to justify our own shortcomings by mediators is that they always think they are immune blaming the situation or others. from making mistakes. This belief that whatever a mediator does must be the right thing to do is a Hassan Wirajuda: I was party to a failed peace talk, common mistake. Sometimes, you know deep in in my capacity as head of delegation of one party, your heart that you did something wrong, but you do not as mediator. The failure was not because of the not want to accept it. For example, a mediator might concept that we agreed upon at the peace talks, but forget to involve a conflict party, even though it is a very because of the difficulty in selling the idea to my own important stakeholder, and this can have devastating government, which was in a period of initial reform and consequences for reaching an agreement. It may transition. As a supporter and promoter of peace talks, simply not have occurred to the mediator under the President Wahid was a weak president who could circumstances. Yet, even in such a case, our instinct not control his own military and factions within his would be to say: ‘It was not your fault. You could not government. Overall, in the initial stages of democratic possibly have included them in this situation’. At the reform, Indonesia was not susceptible to new ideas end of the day, even if each of us believed that we and possible solutions to the conflict in Aceh. On being a peacemaker 48 Oslo Forum Interviews | The Search for Peace: Perspectives on Mediation 2010-2015

Is it the responsibility of the mediator to include gender-related issues in the talks? What are the challenges to putting these issues on the table?

Said Djinnit: We definitely should encourage but we tried. We asked the negotiating teams to bring mediators to do this. Again, because we are not going women, and they did. But with one woman each, or to solve the problem of a nation in a one-, three-, 25%, this did not meet the standard of 30% determined six-months or one-year peace process. Mediators by UN Resolution 1325. All mediations have to deal with can sensitise the parties to gender perspectives. those who have been directly involved in conflict; but to In a way, there is also a dimension of pedagogy to address the root causes, you have to bring in women, mediation, a learning process that has to be started. youth and civil society organisations more generally. If mediators have an opportunity to inculcate in the That has to be done carefully to make sure that the process that women could be part of the solution, representatives of civil society organisations have been they should seize it. I do not selected in a process which think we are there to solve the gives a clear mandate and problem of gender in a conflict trust of the constituency they situation, but I strongly believe represent. In my experience, that the role of mediators teams seated around the is to motivate the parties In a way, there is also a table bring exclusively those to resolve their issues in a who have been in conflict, and sustainable way. Mediation dimension of pedagogy to civil society organisations are is a catalytic work of sorts. It at best consulted from the is the role of the mediator to mediation, a learning process outside. We did the same in think outside the box, and to Kenya. While we really took offer different perspectives. that has to be started. the time to listen to women’s Parties sometimes fail to groups, youth groups, unions, find a solution because they and business, religious and are biased by their own traditional leaders, it was them prejudices. Mediation is also talking to us as mediators as about showing the parties that women indeed can be opposed to talking to their politicians. They were not and are part of the solution. talking to those who led the nation to a situation where people killed each other. Consultations with mediators Graça Machel: Yes, definitely. The fundamental alone cannot substitute the need for a nation to talk question of enabling women to speak for themselves, to itself. It is a very indirect way of communicating to express their own perspectives, aspirations and and debating issues of fundamental importance, and feelings, is not a simple thing. We did not have a I really think the structure of mediation has to change mandate from the African Union to do that in Kenya, in this regard.

Has making peace changed the way you see the world?

Said Djinnit: It has changed my determination to be you. You cannot continue to be the same person. helpful, and I suppose it has given me more sense of The experience of human suffering never leaves purpose. There is always something to be done. Making you; it stays with you and changes you from the peace has definitely strengthened my belief that we inside. They make you yearn for peace because should avoid problems, because, once they are there, you know its price. they are much more difficult to solve. Even beyond my work, this has changed my life: prevention is crucial. Hassan Wirajuda: Yes. It is more difficult to Short of being a mediator – but as an agent, a citizen accept cases of forgotten, lingering conflicts. – we should at least avoid creating problems. These make people immune to the daily occurrence of violence and killings, and so are Graça Machel: Yes, it has. Trying to understand not conducive to the maintenance of international the suffering of victims of conflict definitely changes peace and security. On being a peacemaker Photo credits: Cover: UNMIS Head Addresses Civilians and Rebel Forces in Northern Darfur – UN Photo/Fred Noy Page 7: Oslo Forum 2015 – Stine Merethe Eid Page 8: Jean-Marie Guéhenno – Courtesy of Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs Page 8 and 19: David Harland – Alban Kakulya Page 9: Steven Pinker – Max Gerber Page 18: Marc Bowden – UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan Page 18: Lakhdar Brahimi – UN Photo/Mark Garten Page 18: Jimmy Carter – Stine Merethe Eid Page 34: Ashraf Ghani – UN Photo/Evan Schneider Page 34: Haile Menkerios – UN Office to the African Union Page 35: Mohagher Iqbal - Courtesy of the Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (Philippines) Page 44: Said Djinnit – UN Photo/Jean-Marc Ferré Page 44: Graça Machel – UN Photo/Yubi Hoffmann Page 44: Hassan Wirajuda – UN Photo/Michelle Poiré

© 2016 - Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue Reproduction of all or part of this publication may be authorised only with written consent and acknowledgment of the source. www.hdcentre.org www.osloforum.org