ACARTSOD/DPMF/CEN-SAD
Workshop
19-20
August, 2003 Tripoli,
Great Jamahiriya, Libya
Conflicts and Peace Building in Africa: The role of the AU and Civil Society
Rapporteur’s Report
A workshop titled: “Conflicts and Peace
Building in Africa: The Role of the African Union (AU) and Civil Society”,
took place in Tripoli, The Great Socialist Peoples Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, from
19-20th August 2003. The workshop was organized by The African Centre
For Applied Research and Training in Social Development (ACARTSOD), CEN-SAD and
the Development Policy Management Forum (DPMF). It was opened by a high-ranking
official representing the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Arab Jamahirya, and
attended by members of the African diplomatic corps resident in Tripoli, and
other high-ranking officials of The Great Socialist Peoples Libyan Arab
Jamahirya, the Libyan Civil Society as well as academics and other policy
makers. The list of participants is attached to this report as Annex.
The purpose of the workshop was to explore
the issue of conflict and design a comprehensive Pan African program for
addressing African conflicts in all their forms and manifestations, and at their
various stages of development, including the issues of mediation, negotiation
and compromise as well as their root causes.
The idea behind all this is to have a Pan African Program for analyzing
and tackling African conflicts in a more effective and through manner.
During the two-day workshop that was
graced by the presence of the Dean of the diplomatic corp in Tripoli, His
Excellency the Ambassador of Uganda who made a statement in the course of the
meeting, a wide range of issues relating to the subject of conflicts in Africa
and their solutions was discussed. They included the following:
(1)
“Africa’s Diversities and the Role of the African Union (AU) and
Civil Society”
(2)
“Living Under the same Roof in North Africa: Limits and Impediments”
(3)
“Conflict and International Law”
(4)
“Towards Regional Security Integration in Southern Africa”
(5)
“Conflicts and Peace Building in East and West Africa: What Role for
the African Union and Civil Society?”
(6)
“The Role of the African Union (AU) in conflict resolution and Peace
Building”
(7)
“The Role of the Civil Society in Conflict and Peace Building”
(8)
“The Role of Scientific Research in Conflict and Peace Building in
Africa”
(9)
“Conflict and Peace Building in Africa: The Role of the AU and Civil
Society Organizations”
(10)
“Africa’s Diversities and the Role of the African Union and Civil
Society”
Throughout the general debate, emphasis
was placed on the role of the newly created African Union as well as the role
African Civil society could play at this critical time and at the various stages
of building peace in the largely war torn societies of Africa.
Questions were raised as to why Europe is more peaceful and tranquil than
Africa, why many African countries have remained in the throes of conflict when,
in fact, they do not manufacture arms and weapons, the difference between
intra-state and inter-state conflict, how Africans themselves should strive to
create a sense of belonging as well as common identity, how to handle the
humanitarian dimension of conflict, the role of Regional Organizations in the
maintenance of peace and security with the consent of the UN Security Council,
and how to create a fairer state that guarantees the future of every African
citizen. Conclusions were drawn and recommendations were made with regards to
how securing peace could improve Africa’s economic performance based on a
series of papers presented by various academics and diplomats.
The issue of diversity in African
societies was recognized and deeply appreciated. There was no need for anybody
to destroy this diversity. However, it was found necessary for the Africans to
organize and manage their diversity by creating bridges of peace and
understanding between the various cultural entities and in the interest of
development in Africa. The onus to find viable solutions to Africa’s numerous
problems relating to peace and security was placed squarely on the protagonists
in terms of attitude, under the political leadership and guidance of the AU with
the financial and logistical support from the UN. “If the AU decides to only
depend on the financial contributions exclusively made by member states to build
peace and security on the continent, it will have a long way to go.
Financial contributions should also be solicited from other sources,
especially local ones, including the business community”, so emphasized one
participant.
The need to build on African culture by
enriching it was emphasized, and the possibility of incorporating some of
Africa’s traditional and cultural attributes into governance in Africa was
underscored. As one participant put it: “We are looking to the future; but we
cannot entirely forget the past.” The view was expressed that there is nothing
wrong with seeking “African solutions to African problems” as well as
soliciting outside assistance, so long as the sovereignty of states in Africa as
well as Africa’s cultural identity, and as long as local initiatives are given
primordial importance in whatever is done to ensure durable peace and security
for the peoples of Africa.
The AU together with civil society and
other relevant partners should engage themselves in fundamental research
relating to peace and security in Africa and from different perspectives. This
should be part of both the AU and civil society in their agenda relating to
public policy. Documenting different experiences and alternative policies,
coupled with constitutional dialogue should be encouraged in order to create
broad frameworks for managing diversity in traditional Africa and making life
bearable for African peoples.
It was equally pointed out that efforts
should be deployed in the direction of generating a process of normative
frameworks for incorporating all of Africa’s various cultures. Furthermore,
attempts should be made especially by academics to work out a syllabus that can
facilitate the teaching of how colonialism fueled conflict in Africa by
suppressing ethnic sensitivities, how to manage Africa’s diversity, and build
capacity while looking at different communities and using different experiences
for purposes of establishing justice in society.
How to tackle the problem of poverty and manage abundance in Africa was
also an issue that exercised the minds of participants.
Like one participant put it:” There is no justification for Africa to
remain home to poor people.”
Specifically on the AU, the organization
cannot do more than what its member states want it to do. Furthermore, in the
past the OAU had been able to initiate many things for the welfare of the
African people, including their political emancipation.
It was able to discuss at various fora what was to be done in the face of
conflict, war and insecurity. But it has remained rather weak on tackling the
root causes of conflict and instability on the continent. Furthermore, the
OAU’s failure to inform the African masses about its successes and failures,
what would be referred to as lessons learned, constitutes a dent on the
Organization’s overall performance.
The negative role played by colonialists
was noted. Differences between
peoples in Africa existed prior to colonialism, but the co-existence of the
different ethnic groups never caused problems as fundamental as we know them
today. Indeed, we used to have bitter wars and conflicts over scarce commodities
like water and grazing land; but in our midst were traditional mechanisms and
customs for resolving our differences. It is these ethnic and cultural
differences that were exaggerated during and at the departure of colonialists.
The interlinked and intertwined character
of conflicts throughout most parts of Africa, especially within the Mano River
Union basin, the Great Lakes Region as well as the Horn of Africa were noted. It
was recommended that such interlocking and intertwined conflicts call for
holistic and sub-regional solutions, rather than country-focused solutions.
A high incidence of peace collapse in
Africa was also noted and attributed to:
a)
Inability to manage transition;
b)
Inability to hold free and fair elections;
c)
Inability to detect risk factors;
d)
Inability to strike political compromises;
e)
Inability to properly analyze root causes of conflict; and
f)
Reluctance to give rebel movements a chance to form their own political
parties.
It
was found necessary to distinguish between problems caused by colonialism and
those caused by the Africans themselves. While the notion of “divide and
rule” was the most important tool for colonialism to tear apart African
societies, problems of governance, instability, corruption, the environment are
all caused by African governments and peoples themselves albeit sometimes with
encouragement of outsiders. The OAU started as an organization for building
unity among the African people. But
we cannot build unity, secure peace and stability without paying due attention
to “bread and butter” issues and to the challenge of globalisation.
There is no way we can talk of unity while embracing xenophobia and
harbouring rebels launching attacks against neighbouring states.
Participants were informed by the AU
Representative that while the AU cannot afford to maintain a standing army in
matters pertaining to the maintenance of peace and security on the continent,
the Organization has resolved to host a standby force made of National Military
Units trained in quelling rebellion and armed conflict in Africa’s five
geographic regions, with each region contributing a regional brigade.
Central to all peace building efforts is
the role of local initiatives around which all outside assistance should revolve
in Africa in order to help Africa’s self-help.
Further more it was observed that different types of conflict call for
different solutions at their various stages of development, and by different
groups of people as well as institutions.
Equally, the tensions and rivalries that
usually exist between governments and civil society organizations were duly
noted and regretted. It was agreed
that early warning signals to conflict are important and should be constantly
monitored by both government and civil society organizations, but they must be
matched by equally effective political action.
It was noted that there is need to create
coordinated and sustained partnerships between civil society and government
without each of the two acting as an independent entity unto itself, or without
civil society organizations acting as governments unto themselves simply because
they are foreign-funded. Equally,
civil society organizations should maintain effective areas of coordination and
cooperation among themselves.
It was also noted that a multi-track
approach was essential to conflict resolution.
Environmental as well as health impacts must be noted when dealing with
conflicts and that progress towards sustainable peace and development encourages
us to embrace models of peace which incorporate the absence of want as well as
the absence of war, and focuses more on human security. “The days of state
security rather than human security in Africa are long gone,” so declared one
participant.
In all matters pertaining to peace
building, the ideal situation would be that of having a properly coordinated
civil society, playing center stage in the whole process, while working in close
coordination and cooperation with government and sub-regional organizations,
such as ECOWAS, IGAD, SADC, ECCAS, and the MAGHREPB, under the political
leadership and guidance of the AU, with the active logistical and financial
support of the UN – a body entrusted with the primary responsibility of
maintaining peace and security, worldwide.
Furthermore it was observed that there are two types of conflict in
Africa: conflicts considered as civil wars drawing the attention of academics
and the media on the one hand, and small conflicts like cattle rustling or
conflicts over pasture or water courses in what is considered stable situations
by external agents on the other hand. It
was also argued that if due care is not taken care of, these latter ones can
become the precursor of the usually more nagging and destructive type, drawing
in military intervention. These
small-scale conflicts are never resolved and rarely draw international
attention. Government and civil society must help when it comes to these
types of conflict.
One participant argued that there was need
to distinguish between traditional CSOs that are quite useful to our people’s
general welfare on the one hand, and other small CSOs, foreign-funded and
sometimes harmful to our general welfare. This
latter category is not genuine in so far as national interest is concerned.
There is need to recognize and bring these small indigenous CSOs together
with government officials to work in partnership.
These organizations are actively involved in development work and should
be recognized as such.
The need to bring together eminent
personalities of the Mandela stature to mediate conflict and the need to focus
on the youth should be taken seriously. Furthermore
it was argued that “If you resolve a conflict without a program for
reconciliation, economic development and trauma healing, yours is an exercise in
futility as that conflict is bound to re-ignite”; and therefore durable peace
will remain illusive, so declared one of the participant.
Finally, at the conclusion of the workshop
the participants pledged to remain loyal to their continental organization, the
AU, make it stronger so that it can serve and promote the interests of the
African people, without giving foreigners a chance to come and teach Africa how
to bring about peace, security and stability.
Dr. Christopher Bakwesegha
General Rapporteur