School of Culture of Peace 2014 yearbook of peace processes Vicenç Fisas (ed.) Icaria editorial 1 Printing: Romanyà Valls, SA Design: Lucas J. Wainer ISBN: Legal Deposit: This yearbook was written by Vicenç Fisas, Director of the U AB’s School of Culture of Peace. The author would like to express his gratitude for the information provided by numerous members of the School’s research team, especially Josep María Royo, Jordi Urgell, Pamela Urrutia, Ana Villellas and María Villellas. Vicenç Fisas also holds the UNESCO Chair in Peace and Human Rights at the UAB. He has a doctorate in Peace Studies from the University of Bradford, won the National Human Rights Award in 1988, and is the author of over 30 books on conflicts, disarmament and research into peace. Some of his published titles include Manual de procesos de paz (Handbook of Peace Processes), Procesos de paz y negociación en conflictos armados (Peace Processes and Negotiation in Armed Conflicts), La paz es posible (Peace is Possible) and Cultura de paz y gestión de conflictos (Peace Culture and Conflict Management). 2 CONTENTS Introduction: definitions and categories 5 The main stages in a peace process 6 Usual stages in negotiation processes 8 Main conclusions of the year 9 Peace processes in 2013 10 Conflicts and peace processes at the end of 2013 14 Reasons for crises in the year’s negotiations 15 Conflicts and peace processes in recent years 16 Special topic: the day after a peace agreement 19 Analyses by country Africa a) West Africa Mali 25 Senegal (Casamance) 32 b) Horn of Africa Ethiopia (Ogaden) 36 Somalia 39 Sudan (Darfur) 42 Sudan-South Sudan 47 c) Great Lakes and Central Africa Central African Republic 52 DR Congo 55 d) Maghreb and North Africa Western Sahara 62 Latin America Colombia (ELN, FARC) 67 Asia and Pacific a) Southern Asia Afghanistan 79 India 84 India-Pakistan (Kashmir) 95 b) Southeast Asia Myanmar/Burma 99 Philippines (MILF, NPA, MNLF) 107 Thailand (South) 118 Europe a) Southeast Europe Cyprus 126 Kosovo 130 Moldova (Transdniestria) 136 Turkey (PKK) 141 b) Caucasus Armenia-Azerbaijan 149 Georgia (Abkhazia and South Ossetia) 155 Middle East Israel-Palestine 161 Syria 168 3 Appendices 173 1. Elections following peace agreements 175 2. Main armed groups of the conflicts studied 177 3. Main armed groups not engaged in negotiations 178 4. Age of conflicts without negotiations 179 5. Facilitators in the conflicts studied 179 6. Negotiation times in certain conflicts 181 7. Tell me what it was like… The mirrors of peace 182 8. Conflicts, peace processes and UN Security Council resolutions in 2013 183 9. Managing the past in recent peace agreements 184 10. Peace processes in recent years 185 11. Websites of interest 199 Escola de Cultura de Pau 200 4 5 Introduction This ninth edition of the Yearbook on Peace Processes1 analyses conflicts in which negotiations are being held to reach a peace agreement, regardless of whether these negotiations are formalised, are in the exploratory phase, are faring well or, to the contrary, are stalled or in the midst of crisis. It also analyses some cases in which negotiations or explorations are partial; that is, they do not include all the armed groups present in the country (such as the case of India, for example). The majority of the negotiations refer to armed conflicts, but we also analyse quite a few contexts in which, despite the fact that there are no considerable armed clashes today, the parties have not reached a permanent agreement that would put an end to the hostilities and conflicts still pending. In that sense, the negotiations make sense in an effort to fend off the start or resurgence of new armed clashes. The organisation of the analysis of each conflict follows a similar pattern in most cases: 1) a brief synopsis of the context of the conflict, with a small description of the armed groups and the main actors intervening in each conflict, 2) the background to the peace process, 3) the events that happened in 2013, 4) a table with the most significant events in the year as a summary, 5) a selection of websites where you can monitor the conflict and 6) a table illustrating the relationships among the primary and secondary actors in each conflict, highlighting the spaces of intermediation in each case.2 At the start of every country, there is a small box with basic statistics on it. The government armed forces are not included in the section of the box called “Armed actors”. The author of this yearbook has tried to stay within the bounds of mentioning new deeds, events, successes, failures or proposals in an attempt to limit personal opinions on these events to the extent possible. MODALITIES OR STAGES IN PEACE PROCESSES Informal indirect contacts Formal indirect contacts Informal direct contacts Formal direct contacts Informal explorations Formal explorations Informal dialogues Formal dialogues Formal negotiations Formal peace process By negotiation we mean the process through which two or more clashing parties (either countries or internal actors within the same country) agree to discuss their differences in an agreed-upon setting to find a solution that will meet their demands. This negotiation can be either direct or through third-party facilitation. Formal negotiations usually have a prior, exploratory, phase, which enables the framework (format, venue, conditions, guarantees, etc.) of the future negotiations to be defined. By peace process we mean the consolidation of a negotiation scheme 1 The yearbook expands on the information provided by the Escola de Cultura de Pau through its annual publication “Alerta 2014” (Icària Editorial, 2014), which is updated quarterly through the electronic publication “Barómetro” (http: escolapau.uab.cat). 2 This “space of intermediation” includes not only the more formal “facilitators or mediators” (which are indicated by letter size or bold face), but also other institutions or individuals that have somehow intervened. Obviously, facilitation efforts that were not made public are not included, even if the author is aware of some of them. 6 once the thematic agenda and the procedures to follow have been defined, along with the calendar and the facilitators. Therefore, negotiation is just one stage in a peace process. By ceasefire we mean the military decision to halt any combat or use of weapons during a specified period, while cessation of hostilities includes not only a ceasefire but also the commitment not to engage in kidnapping, harassment of the civilian population, threats, etc. Depending on the ultimate goals sought and the dynamic of the different phases in the negotiation process, the majority of peace processes can be categorised into one of these five categories or models, although some cases may combine two categories: a) Demobilisation and reinsertion b) Sharing of political, military or economic power c) Exchange (peace for democracy, peace for land, peace for withdrawal, peace for recognition of rights, etc.) d) Trust-building measures e) Formulas for self-governance or “intermediate political architectures” The model of peace process is usually related to the kinds of demands presented and the actors’ capacity to exert pressure or demand (level of symmetry between the military, political and social spheres), although mentors and facilitators, the weariness of the actors, support received and other less rational factors related to leaders’ pathologies, imagined events or historical inertia also come into play. In some cases, though not many, especially if the process has lasted a long time, it might begin in one of the above categories (demobilisation and reinsertion, for example) and then the demands expand to situate the process in another more complex category. It is also important to recall that not all processes or their previous phases of exploration, dialogue and negotiation are undertaken with true sincerity, as it is common for them to be part of the actor’s war strategy, either to win time, to internationalise and gain publicity, to rearm or for other reasons. Finally, I wanted to note that what we commonly call a “peace process” is actually nothing other than a “process to put an end to violence and armed struggle”. The signing of a cessation of hostilities and the subsequent signing of a peace agreement are nothing other than the start of the true “peace process”, which is linked to stage called “post-war rehabilitation”. This stage is always fraught with difficulties, but it is where decisions are truly taken and policies are truly enacted which, if successful, will manage to overcome the violence (both structural and cultural) that will ultimately enable us to talk about truly having “achieved peace”. This yearbook, however, with the exception of a few appendices, shall limit itself to analysing the efforts made in the early stages of this long pathway, without which the final goal would be impossible to reach. The main stages in a peace process All peace processes require a huge time investment, and this is proven by the many years that must usually be spent for one to begin and bear fruit. Generally speaking, with very few exceptions, peace processes follow a pattern with more or less known phases in which the most time is spent on negotiations. They work with an initial exploratory or testing phase, also called pre-negotiation, in which the actors intervening in the process (explorers) calibrate the conviction of the parties, that is, whether they are truly convinced that they are going to launch a negotiation process in which they will have to give up something. This stage is decisive, since negotiations are often held without true conviction by one of the parties, either the government or the armed group. In this case, the negotiations are destined for failure.