What's Being Done On . . . Democracy NGO Participation in Formal Peace Negotiations?

Introduction General Resources Women's Organizations Resources Democratic Republic of Congo: A Short History of the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo Profile of La Ligue des Electeurs Liberia: A Short History of the Conflict in Liberia Profile of the Mano River Women's Peace Network Sri Lanka: A Short History of the Conflict in Sri Lanka An Interview with the National Peace Council of Sri Lanka Chechnya: A Short History of the Conflict in the Chechen Republic An Interview with the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society in Europe

The World Movement Secretariat would like to thank its consultant, Ms. Cornelia Schiller, for her assistance in assembling this installment.

This installment of "What's Being Done On…" focuses on "Democracy NGO Participation in Formal Peace Negotiations." It highlights the emerging trend of NGO participation in formal peace talks and emphasizes the intrinsic value of inclusive and democratic processes when negotiating a country's future.

Despite increasing recognition that NGOs play an instrumental role in all aspects of peacebuilding during and after conflict, the dominant paradigm for peace negotiations continues to focus on bringing together leaders of combatant parties to reach a peace agreement. Peace processes are often initiated by civil society actors, but NGOs remain largely excluded from the pivotal task of negotiating agreements that shape the future of a country and have long-term effects on its population. Little work has been undertaken to investigate the role of democracy NGOs in formal peace negotiations, but NGOs in war-torn countries have in fact become more vocal in their appeal for involvement in their countries' peace-making processes, and have increasingly been invited to observe negotiations or make recommendations. NGOs are traditionally not offered a place at the official negotiation table, but in a few countries, such as Liberia and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), their direct involvement has been welcomed. This may be indicative of a trend that has been emerging since the late 1990s, in which NGOs are mobilizing to earn themselves a formal place at peace negotiations.

In this installment

This installment features four case studies. Each case study profiles a conflict and NGO involvement in peace negotiations: the civil war in Liberia, which lasted from 1989 to 2003; the 1996-2003 war in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC); and the protracted conflicts in Sri Lanka and the Chechen Republic. To gain insights into the issues associated with various aspects of NGO participation in peace talks, two NGOs - one vying for the inclusion of civil society in peace talks, and one that has been obstructed from any such involvement - have been interviewed. In addition, two NGOs that have participated in their countries' peace negotiations have been profiled.

• The Mano River Women's Peace Network (MARWOPNET) - an NGO formed by women of the Mano River region (Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia) to promote their participation in peace processes in Africa, and specifically in the Mano River region. MARWOPNET has participated in a variety of peace summits in the region and encouraged dialogue between combatants in Liberia by meeting with faction leaders during the war. It participated in the Liberian peace negotiations held in Ghana in the summer of 2003, and was a key signatory member of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement for Liberia.

• La Ligue des Electeurs (League of Voters) - an NGO focused on the democratization process and human rights in the DRC, with a particular concentration on the electoral culture in the country. It participated in the Inter-Congolese Dialogue (ICD) in Sun City, South Africa, which brought an end to DRC's civil war. The organization ensured that the issue of elections remained central to the peace process.

• The National Peace Council of Sri Lanka - an NGO dedicated to supporting a negotiated solution to the civil war in Sri Lanka. Its aim is to facilitate the creation of an inclusive movement for peace, and to build an environment hospitable to formal peace negotiations. The organization has released media statements calling for the inclusion of civil society at peace talks, and cites insufficient civil society representation in Sri Lanka's peace negotiations as one of the main reasons for their failures thus far.

• The Russian-Chechen Friendship Society in Europe (RCFS) - an NGO that raises awareness about human rights violations in Chechnya, provides assistance to conflict victims, and attempts to create an environment hospitable to formal peace negotiations. RCFS was headquartered in Russia until October 2006, when a new NGO law, which made it illegal for an NGO to be headed by someone convicted of "extremist" activities, forced its closure. In fact, RCFS's director had been convicted of "inciting racial hatred" in February 2006 simply for allowing articles to be published in RCFS's newspaper that quoted Chechen separatists speaking out against the conflict. RCFS now continues its work from Finland.

NGOs and peace negotiations

The emerging trend of NGO participation in formal peace negotiations largely correlates with a change in the nature of conflict, but also with a general increase in peace negotiations as a method to end conflict, and the growing awareness that such negotiations ought to be democratic and inclusive.

Since the 1990s, the changing nature of conflict has led to an increase in the scope and role of NGOs. The proliferation of ethnic and intra-state disputes has meant that civilian populations are severely affected by most modern conflicts. For example, in the early 1990s, the percentage of civilian casualties in wars was around five percent; today. this figure is 80 percent. International mediators and NGOs have begun to recognize that the character of intra-state conflict necessitates civil society's involvement in peace negotiations, and they have made significant efforts to persuade states and rebel groups to include NGOs in peace talks. Civil wars often result in the complete destruction of a country's political, economic, and social institutions, and since peace agreements to end these wars usually entail provisions for the re-building of an entire society, it is becoming essential to include NGOs in negotiations as representatives of civil society. Furthermore, since 1990, negotiation has become a widely used mechanism for conflict resolution. Between 1900 and 1990, approximately 20 percent of wars were settled through peace negotiations, but over the past 15 years, around 50 percent of conflicts have been concluded in this manner. Additionally, because peace negotiations normally include a provision for democratic elections, there is a growing opinion that they ought to be democratic themselves, and that all members of a society, regardless of gender, race, or class, should have an input. This notion has been underpinned by UN Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace, and Security, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious, and Linguistic Minorities. Women's NGOs are using Resolution 1325 to demand their inclusion in peace negotiations, and government entities refer to it when they initiate dialogue with NGOs regarding peace and security issues. However, the notion that NGOs play an active role in developing peace agreements is still a long way from being considered an established norm of contemporary peace processes.

NGOs next to the negotiation table

The traditional approach to peace negotiations is called "Track One" diplomacy, in which negotiations are conducted by leaders of combatant parties and usually mediated by regional organizations or neutral governments. Since the late 1970s, additional approaches to conflict resolution, such as "Track Two" and "Multi-Track" diplomacy, have emerged. The former represents unofficial, informal interaction among civil society actors, such as NGOs, research institutes, or churches, while the latter refers to peace processes in which government officials, conflict-resolution professionals, the business community, civil society, and the media are involved at many different levels. Examples abound of democracy NGO involvement in "Track Two" and "Multi-Track" diplomacy, and many NGOs have been involved in peace negotiations through informal and formal working groups, assemblies, or conferences that make recommendations to the negotiators. Examples include Colombia, Sri Lanka, Nepal, El Salvador, and the Philippines. Although they may have an input in such negotiations, however, these NGOs are rarely given a formal voice. Cases in point are the Civil Society Assembly (CSA) of Guatemala and the Liberian Women's Initiative (LWI). CSA is an association of NGOs that was created in 1994 to propose recommendations for the negotiations between the government of Guatemala and the Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca (URNG), which ended with the signing of a peace agreement in December 1996. The CSA was the government's and URNG's solution to increasingly vocal NGO demands for formal participation in Guatemala's peace process. However, the recommendations and guidelines made by the CSA were not binding on the negotiators, and CSA did not have the power to veto suggestions it did not endorse. This meant that the CSA would be given a voice in the negotiations, but not a decision-making one. Likewise, LWI, an NGO formed in 1994 by Liberian women aiming to foster disarmament, peace, and free and fair elections, called for its inclusion in the peace talks to end the first part of Liberia's civil war in 1996. LWI attended regional peace talks and advocated grassroots perspectives directly to the leaders of warring factions, but it was excluded from the formal negotiations.

NGOs at the negotiation table: advantages and challenges

In many cases, the process of bringing antagonists together to agree, eventually, to sit down at a negotiating table is more complicated, time-consuming, and difficult than reaching agreement in negotiations themselves, yet it is during this process that NGOs are often principal players. The same capacities that help NGOs create conditions conducive to peace talks can shape the conduct and content of formal negotiations and influence the stability of peace agreements. The following are positive aspects of having NGOs participate in formal peace agreements:

• NGOs tend to have practical knowledge of the various challenges faced by the civilian population and can propose feasible and effective ways to address them, which means they possess a level of expertise that combatants often lack. Moreover, in less developed and war-torn countries, NGOs may already perform many functions of government, such as maintaining health clinics or educational facilities, and can therefore better assess public welfare needs than the combatants.

• NGOs, and particularly democracy NGOs, confer legitimacy on formal peace negotiations because they represent the 'people's interests' and render the talks more democratic, inclusive, and responsive to the priorities of the wider population. This generates public support for policies outlined in peace agreements and can help ensure their successful implementation.

• NGOs emphasize norms relating to democratic values and principles, such as the rule of law, respect for human rights, and government accountability; address underlying issues that have fueled the conflict; and identify opportunities for constructive social and political change. Furthermore, the majority of peace agreements entail provisions for democratic elections to be held within a certain time frame, and the inclusion of NGOs at peace talks helps to strengthen democratic forms of decision making within society.

• NGO participation can contribute to the psychological healing of society. By allowing civil society to participate in peace negotiations, the reconciliation process becomes part of the peace process, which is essential for a viable and sustainable peace, becomes more viable itself.

• NGOs are not directly involved in a conflict. Therefore, as a third party, NGOs can act effectively as a bridge between combatants during negotiations.

However, despite the various advantages associated with NGO participation, there exist several internal and external challenges that may influence their effectiveness at negotiations:

• Civil Society is not homogenous. A handful of NGOs may be invited to political negotiations as representatives of "civil society," but this term embodies a diverse array of interests, agendas, and groups of people who are often divided about political and social issues. Given the devastating effects of civil war on a country's society, building alliances across political and ethnic divides and identifying points of minimum consensus can seem an almost insurmountable challenge for NGOs invited to peace talks.
• NGOs may have organizational shortcomings. Local NGOs are often situated in rural areas, may be small in nature, and might lack the organizational capacities to collaborate with other NGOs to prepare themselves for negotiations. Additionally, many NGOs are wholly dependent on international donor support and may be forced to incorporate a donor's agenda, which may diverge from local needs, into their own.
• Combatants often show little or no receptivity to the concerns of NGOs. The warring parties frequently see themselves as the sole legitimate representatives of "their" people and can be reluctant to concede space at the negotiation process to NGOs. Combatants may perceive NGOs as hindrances to the attainment of their goals and as entities that should instead concern themselves solely with humanitarian issues.

For NGOs to participate effectively in their country's peace negotiations and influence them in a positive way, it is vital for them to coordinate among each other. NGOs must develop cohesive strategies and positions, and formulate joint declarations to be presented at negotiations. Promoting NGO participation in peace negotiations is more easily accomplished in a vibrant and active civil society, and when a conflict has affected a country's entire society and the majority of the population is calling for peace. However, all NGOs face the challenge of combining high-level negotiation and diplomacy with more traditional grassroots peace and democracy efforts.

Information for this summary on the emerging trend of NGOs in formal peace negotiations was drawn in part from the following sources:

Civil Society: Participating in Peace Processes. Paul van Tongeren et al. in People Building Peace II. London, 2005. Available at: www.c-r.org/resources/occasional-papers/civil-society-participating.php

"Beyond Mediation: The Integral Role of Non-Governmental Approaches to Resolving Protracted Ethnic Conflicts in Lesser-Developed Countries." David Baharvar, Journal of Peace and Conflict Resolution, Issue 4.1, Summer 2001.

Democracy and Deep-Rooted Conflict: Options for Negotiators. Peter Harris and Ben Reilly. Stockholm, 1998. Available at: www.idea.int/publications/democracy_and_deep_rooted_conflict/