Interview with UNDP's Sam Amoo on peace-building in Africa

Sam Amoo is heading a pan-African programme for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), aimed at boosting the continent’s conflict resolution capabilities. In the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa, he told IRIN why efforts often fail because peace builders arrive with ready-made answers, and how it is up to Africans to find solutions to the conflicts that ravage the continent. QUESTION: Why are there so many conflicts in Africa? ANSWER: It could be a phase. We got our independence, constitutions, but most opted for authoritarian systems and some of these authoritarian systems are now giving way to more inclusive, more collaborative, more open governance. It is a phase that I believe Africa is going through, because you can tell up to about the late 80s - middle 90s, most African governments were authoritarian. Q: So you think good governance lies at the heart of conflict resolution? A: Governance is a major problem – because if you are talking about the sources, you have authoritarianism, exclusivity, and lack of equity. Poverty plays a major role, but poverty is not the sole reason for these conflicts – governance is quite an important issue when it comes to stability in these areas in Africa. Q: Why do you think traditionally peace-building efforts in Africa have failed? A: They haven’t failed. Where have peace-building efforts succeeded in one go? It is a long process. Q: As long as Somalia or Sudan? A: As long as the Middle East. It hasn’t failed unless you want to say the Middle East has failed completely. Unless you want to say Cyprus has failed. These are long processes and then resources may not be there or not be adequate because peace-building takes a lot of resources. Q: What key issues have peace builders learnt in Africa in the last 10 years? A: Often we have only involved the leaders without involving civil societies. Often we go into these areas without solid analysis. We go with the notion that we know what they want – with ready made answers. But a peace process, especially for the mediators, they should have some serious analysis to identify major actors, the role of the local community and other stakeholders. What roles can other countries in the region play? Those involved in the conflict [should] come up with the answer. That is what we mean by authorship and ownership. Q: Is a key weakness in conflict resolution African leaders’ unwillingness to interfere? A: Yes, but now that has been taken care of, because the African Union constitutive act allows for interference. Non-interference was virtually taken as a mantra. The new constitutive act incorporates the lessons we have learnt from the challenges faced in the Organisation for African Unity [OAU]. Q: How do you justify interfering in another country’s affairs? A: Serious abuse of humanitarian issues, genocide. We cannot stand by. My own view of peace-building is that multilateralism should always be given the chance to resolve these conflicts. Unilateral approaches can be abused. Multilateralism means the problem has been defined multilaterally – the solution has been defined multilaterally and the instrument to resolve it has been determined multilaterally. Q: And how would you define multilateral – two, three, four countries? A: Each situation will have to be determined. Burundi for instance, the regional powers imposed sanctions on the government of Burundi – that was a regional decision and it was supported by the OAU. The important thing is, as far as Africa is concerned, is individual nations giving themselves the power to intervene. They can intervene with a mandate from the region or from the African Union. Q: Why should people be optimistic that peace-building experts can prevent conflict, especially after Iraq? A: Conflict is part of life, especially when you talk about a democratic system. From Africa’s point of view, there are a lot of issues around governance, but the challenge is to make sure that conflict does not turn into violence. After all, what is conflict, disagreements, disputes, but that is part of politics. You may have different views, different aspirations. But the challenge to Africa is that these normal disagreements, which are part of politics, [do] not spill over into violence. It turns into violence when the leaders, or the major stakeholders select options that lead to violence. Q: How do you suggest the Ethio-Eritrea peace process can overcome the current impasse? A: My opinion is that there is no stalemate. It is a process, it goes up and down, and the parties will have to build confidence to move another step. It is not a clear process where you sign an agreement. Even implementing an agreement will have a lot of hiccups. We have to give the parties time. Q: Is there an acceptable timescale in resolving conflict in peace-building models? A: I wouldn’t put on a timescale, but at the same time I wouldn’t say that a peacekeeping process should go on forever. There are times when the mediators should put pressure on the parties to move ahead. But then there has to be some level of flexibility in these things. Where it is necessary to put pressure on parties to come together, yes, you put pressure. That pressure can be in the form of carrot, sticks, leverage and using the environment in the peace process – like the regional countries who can constitute a positive environment in keeping the peace process going. But it is difficult to put a time limit, because if you force, you end up with situations that can re-ignite conflict. It should be indefinite, but at the same time you have to realise that the pressure must be reasonable. Q: Why the need now to strengthen Africa’s capacity for peace-building? A: Since the end of the Cold War there have been more expectations for African institutions and regional arrangements and mechanisms to play the primary or initial role in maintaining peace on the continent. It may be that because there are so many conflicts all over the world, so that the international community spread themselves so thinly. And for years, Africans have been asking that we find African solutions to African problems. Now they are prepared to play this role. But there is a serious gap between expectation and capacity. We aim to help develop that capacity. Q: When you say capacity what do you mean? A: Technical capacity. If you are talking of going on peacekeeping missions, one of roles is training civilians for peacekeeping missions, because times are past when you just send people to go with a peacekeeping mission. The civilians have to be trained. They have to know how to design, manage and mobilise resources for projects. Q: But can African governments afford expensive peacekeeping initiatives? A: We advocate three components. The first is using economic cooperation and development integration to stabilise areas most heavily impacted by conflict. The second is supporting regional organisations to involve civil society in active participation in peace-building generally defined. The third is using security policies and cooperation mechanisms for conflict prevention and peace-building - and that is where we talk about early warning mechanisms, how you train civilians to be part of peacekeeping. Q: So regional organisations are key in peace-building? A: They are all complimentary. The United Nations has the ultimate responsibility, but we can also use regional mechanisms and arrangements to resolve conflicts. The African peace agenda will also rely on the regional organisations, and so these regional organisations have to be given the capacity because they are part of the African peace and security agenda, which the African Union has specifically stated. Burundi, Liberia, Guinea Bissau, Cape Verde – these are all regional peace process arrangements. Q: What role should civil society play in peace-building? A: They have to play a complimentary role, but it would be wrong for us, especially the international community, to believe they can take over the governance in the country. Ten years ago, the international community and donor groups were more inclined to give support to so-called NGOs and virtually neglected the governments, because they thought the governments were corrupt and inefficient. That is not the solution. There has to be a government, there has to be law and order. Civil societies are not going to police a country; civil society is not going to protect a country. How many schools can civil society build, how many roads? Q: Where is a good example of conflict resolution where other countries can look to for examples on peace-building? A: At the UN we always cite Mozambique as a good example – but it required a lot of resources. Q: Why is it a good example? A: Well you never resolve a conflict, because it is always going on, but at least the violence was stopped, a political process was put in place, the so-called rebel force became a political party. The conflict was not re-ignited like Liberia, so it can be seen as a good example.