**[CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN AFRICA]{.underline}**

**The views expressed in this and other papers associated with the NIC
2020 project**

are those of individual participants. They are posted for discussion
purposes only and do not represent the views of the US Government.

## CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN AFRICA

**[Role played by countries and organizations]{.underline}**

  Conflict prevention and resolution in Africa is a much debated subject
in recent years. This is due to the fact that Africa continues to
witness conflicts- some old and some new- most of which have proved to
be resistant to efforts at resolution.

**[Conflicts; An Overview]{.underline}**

While it may not be easy to classify conflicts in a categorical way, not
all conflicts in Africa are of the same kind as can be seen below:

-   Interstate conflicts - ***such as the Ethio-Eritrean conflict***

-   Intrastate conflicts limited mainly to within a state- ***such as
    the Angolan civil war, and conflicts in Somalia, Algeria, CAR and
    Senegal.***

-   Conflicts that are spread over a number of countries - ***such as
    the conflicts in Central and West Africa.***

-   Potential conflicts - ***such as over transboundary water resources
    like the Nile River.***

>  

Many conflicts erupt due to clashes over access to resources, for
instance as a result of the encroachment of one party on lands
traditionally considered by another to be on its own terrain. 

Some conflicts over resources have emerged from earlier cold-war-driven
disputes fought by African proxies in such countries as Angola, and
Mozambique. 

Other conflicts have broken out as a result of unmarked or unacceptable
borders (Ethiopia-Eritrea, Cameroun-Nigeria, Libya-Chad) or because of
poor governance and exclusion from the sharing of power.

What is common to all the conflicts is that fighting takes place in
areas characterized by deep poverty, economic stagnation and the lack of
hope for the future. It is also evident that conflicts are generated by
those considered to be from the elite. While conflicts are caused by the
reasons referred to earlier, they are mainly manifested by a falling out
between elites, or between members of the same national elite. Generally
it is those believed to be more enlightened who incite the poor, calling
on their followers to take violent action. Those who pay the supreme
sacrifice are always the poor, the foot soldiers for the \"cause.\"

In light of the limitations in the political, economic and material
capacities of individual African states, it is clear that the forces
that can contribute to conflict resolution are those that have the
influence and experience, or the financial and material werewithal to be
able to do so. Recent history has shown that without outside help,
individual countries are usually not up to the task of resolving
conflicts of a major scale that erupt within their borders.

 **[The Role of Neighbouring States]{.underline}**

While neighbouring states could be a contributing factor to conflicts in
countries, they have been shown to play a role in the \"spirit of a
neighbour\" of helping a sister state in resolving conflicts.

Initiatives of neighbouring states, however, have limitations. As they
are geographically and therefore politically, economically and socially
close to the conflict, neighbours may not be seen as fair arbiters by
one or the other party. Neither do African states have the material and
infrastructural capacity to single - handedly take on such
responsibilities. For instance, they cannot absorb the influence of
refugees and displaced persons without external support.

And yet, when they play constructive roles, neighbouring states are
indispensable to the resolution of conflicts. They represent a factor of
stability and serve as the \"example - next- door\" of the benefits of
peace. As knowledgeable partners who are familiar with the personalities
involved, neighbouring states can playing a vital role in efforts to end
conflicts.

 

 **[The Role of Regional and Continental Organizations]{.underline}**

Africa is a host to a number of regional organizations that have taken
upon themselves the responsibility to assure peace and stability in
their region, in addition to other political and economic objectives.
The organizations being referred to include the Economic Community of
West African States (ECOWAS), the Southern African Development Community
(SADC), the Intergovernmental Authority on Development IGAD in the Horn
of Africa, and the East African Cooperation (EAC). At the continental
level, the sole organization is the African Union. In addition there is
anther grouping of over 17 states known as CENSAD, made up of West,
North, Sahelian and some Horn of Africa states.

Some of these organizations have demonstrated that regional bodies can
play an important and, in some cases, a central role in dealing with
conflicts for a number of reasons.

Regional organizations are made up of countries involved in a conflict
and those that are not. As a result, they have the proximity, and at the
same time the sense of balance that allows them to politically define
the nature of the conflict. Political and geographical proximity allows
these organizations to realize the effects and repercussions of a given
conflict, and, if necessary, to seek support from extra-regional sources
to bring the dispute to an end.

Credibility is what regional organizations bring to conflict resolution.
Generally, they are seen to be fair and knowledgeable, and can therefore
co-author and spearhead peace efforts. Their initiatives can receive the
backing of extra- regional organizations both at pan African, and non
African levels due to the trust placed upon them.

But matters are not so straight-forward. Regional organizations are made
up of individual countries, some of which are large and influential
within the sub-region. Each region in Africa has countries that are
strong economically or militarily, allowing their governments to
influence the initiatives that the regional organization promotes. In
many cases, the leader of an influential state takes the initiative and
secures the support of other member states of the region in order to
launch a peace effort in the name of a given regional organization.

Such a situation has its pros and cons. Influential states have the
benefit of being relatively more able to make things happen. On the
other hand, they can be perceived as pushing others around. Whatever the
case, one cannot speak of ECOWAS without Nigeria or SADC without South
Africa. Regarding the Horn, Ethiopia is the most populous and centrally
situated country in the IGAD region.

There are also differences in the extent to which regional organizations
have played a role in conflict resolution. ECOWAS and IGAD have been the
most active in dealing with conflicts in West Africa, Sudan and Somalia
respectively. SADC has established a Committee on Defence and Security
and there is consultation on political, defence and security matters
among the member states of the EAC.

The role, or potential role of the African Union, should not be
belittled. In its present revitalized form, the AU has begun to project
a stronger image, and its stamp of approval for the activities of
regional organizations is likely to be needed more and more.

Neither should it be believed that SADC or IGAD or ECOWAS member states
make the best mediators or the ideal sources of peace- keeping troops in
their respective regions. The use of troops from neighbouring countries
could, in some cases, be unwise. Utilizing a Malian official to handle a
crisis in East Africa and, using troops mainly from Southern Africa
could be more appropriate for instance. Such a responsibility would best
be taken by the African Union.

At this point, note should be made of initiatives involving the whole
continent, such as NEPAD, and another covering the northern half of
Africa namely CENSAD. NEPAD is described as the development program for
Africa; or the framework for progress through which African countries,
and the African Union, are measured. Its principles of good governance,
including the peer review mechanism, can play an important role in the
prevention of internal conflict in African states.

CENSAD, however, presents a more blurred picture. It has long gone
beyond being a community of Sahelian states. Its members have adopted
ambitious plans, including entering into obligations of a political,
security and military nature. To many, CENSAD looks like a \"fast track
AU\" strongly influenced by Libya. With the necessary financial support,
it may be able to play a role in dealing with conflicts among its
members. Some observers, however, believe that CENSAD constitutes
another layer of pan African organization that is unnecessary. It would
make more sense for such an organization to include those not already
belonging to the five \"building block\" organizations of the African
continent

**[The Balance between Internal (African) and External
Diplomacy]{.underline}**

Any discussion of conflicts in Africa must take into account the
importance of non African actors - the United Nations Security Council,
the United States, the European Union and major member states.

This must be done for political and economic reasons. The political
authority of the United Nations Security Council, the only global
institution with the mandate of assuring peace and security anywhere in
the world, is critical in driving home to conflicting parties the
importance and urgency of reaching a settlement.

While diplomacy at the African level should concentrate more on
identifying and elaborating the political substance of the initiative to
resolve a given conflict, diplomacy at the level of the U.S., UN and EU
should emphasize the role the international community would need to play
to ensure that the world is behind the initiative, and that they would
help in technical and material terms to provide a developmental solution
to the crisis.

Some persons simplify this arrangement with the phrase, \"the Americans
issue the order, the Europeans pay, the Africans fight\" As in all
simplifications there is some grain of truth in this. But what is
essential is that all the \'partners\' in the peace process share
various responsibilities to some degree or another. The African side is
investing its people in large numbers in conflict resolution. The rest
should not just pay and monitor. Peace keeping in Africa is not just the
responsibility of Africans. Others need to join in, although maybe not
to the same extent in human terms. But they cannot expect to deal with
the peace process by remote control. It has been shown, for example in
Sierra Leone, that non African combatants can play a decisive role in
assuring peace.

Nor should we believe that a political solution can only be devised by
Africans alone. We should not forget that the U.S played an important
role, together with the EU and the AU on the Ethio-Eritrea conflict.

What can be said is that conflict resolution efforts need to be
inclusive (local, regional, continental, international) and at the same
time workable. There need not be a contradiction between inclusivity and
practicality. In fact, inclusivity has been seen in practice to be the
best way forward.

Note

When referring the external diplomacy there are two more developments
that need to be examined further. The first is the tendency for the
African states neighbouring the Mediterranean to look more and more to
Europe (and vice versa) rather than to the rest of Africa. The
EU-Mediterranean Partnership and separate EU negotiations with North
African countries are prying most these states away from Africa both
politically and economically.

* *

*Secondly, the role of the Arab League and the Islamic Conference
Organization in Africa needs to be considered. Some countries have used
their membership in African organizations to solicit support for purely
Arab/Middle Eastern causes. The Arab League could also be
instrumentalized to promote the interest of its member states in Africa
against African countries that are not its members.*

**[The Balance between Bilateral Relationships and International
Organizations]{.underline}**

In seeking world-wide support for the resolution of African conflicts,
there is always the need to engage influential states on the one hand,
and international organizations such as the United Nations and the
European Union on the other.

Whether in East Timor, Haiti or Georgia it has been shown that it is
essential to get the United States on board to back, or at the very
least, not to oppose an initiative designed to resolve conflicts.

That is true for Africa as well. Garnering the support of the United
States goes a long way in building support in the United Nations
Security Council. To a smaller extent, that is also the case for the
United Kingdom.

At the same time, it is important to ensure that efforts are made to
secure the support of France, Russia and China, as far as the United
Nations Security Council is concerned.

There are also certain non Security Council countries that could play an
important role in assisting in conflict prevention in Africa. Experience
has shown that Norway, and, in the past, Italy have contributed to
building confidence and peace in such conflicts as those in Sudan, in
Central Africa and in Mozambique.

Certain non governmental institutions such as the Carter Centre in the
USA and the Community of St. Egidio in Rome have facilitated contacts
and made peace initiatives. But at the end of the day, a peace effort
needs to be backed by political authorities both at the regional and at
the international level for it to have a real chance of influencing the
conflicting parties positively.

While addressing the major countries bilaterally, it is essential to
direct diplomatic activities at officials in charge of international
organizations. In this regard, the United Nations Secretariat, led by
the Secretary General must be a key target of diplomacy. Although it may
be assumed that the U.N Secretariat does the bidding of members of the
Security Council, the Secretariat could play a pivotal role on issues
that are not a matter of priority to the Permanent Five. And in most
cases, African issues do not figure high on the bilateral agenda of the
powerful countries in the UN. The same applies to the European Union.
More and more international issues are the subject of regular
consultation among EU member states. African issues are handled in
Brussels at different levels and the opinion of the Commission - which
is informed by its numerous representatives on the continent - can not
be taken lightly.

It can therefore be concluded that outside of Africa, the diplomatic
activity would need to be inclusive of individual states and
international organizations, although the influence of major states does
go a long way in forming the final decision that international
organizations make.