Towards reconciliation
Here I am still at the OSCE’s Security Days, which in its third session is turning towards the question of reconciliation, “addressing the protracted conflicts and revitalizing dialogue.”
Janez Lenarčič, Director of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions (ODIHR) opens suggesting that it is obvious OSCE needs to move in this direction, since anything else raises risks of reigniting conflicts.
Erwan Fouéré, Special Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office for the Transdniestrian Settlement Process:
- We need to devote more attention to learning from other experiences. South Africa offers many lessons about the need to negotiate with your enemies and the role of women. The Northern Ireland process illustrates the need for patience and partnerhsip.
- The vital ingredient for success is trust between the sides. This is only achieved through dialogue. This is the prerequisite for taking risk and compromising.
- Peace implementation is as important as peace negotiation. Irreversibility should not be taken for granted. Much work still needed in Northern Ireland and Macedonia.
- A peace process requires reconciliation. It is difficult to build this into the settlement. South Africa is a good example. Northern Ireland still has a long way to go. Reconciliation cannot be imposed but needs to come from the region: Rekom, for example, in former Yugoslavia.
- It is vital to involve civil society. The earlier civil society is involved, the more likely a peace process will result in reconciliation.
Kai Eide, former UN Special Representative for Afghanistan and Head of the UN Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), underlines the gap between the deep level of engagement in Afghanistan and the little understanding of the situation. Confidence building measures (CBMs) have not yet convinced the parties that talk is better than fight. We need to look at time-limited, space-limited ceasefires. OSCE has the kind of experience with CBMs that is needed in Afghanistan. The conflict has deepened fissures in Afghan society–internationals need to pay attention to this. There are too many actors trying to get a negotiation process started. The internationals should not try to impose a solution. The Afghans need to deal with each other on issues like decentralization and division. Eventually there will have to be reintegration of former fighters. That requires confidence in the settlement. Does the OSCE have relevant experience? There are two other issues: political reform and accountability for past behavior. Does the OSCE have experience in these areas? Even within its own area, does the OSCE complete the job?
Aleksandr Nikitin, Director for Euro-atlantic Security at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, notes the relatively small financial and manpower contributions of Russia to UN peacekeeping operations, which is inconsistent with Putin’s global power ambitions. The Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CTSO) is one of the answers. It is the West that expanded the UN mandate in Libya to regime change.
CTSO can provide interoperable and jointly trained forces. This follows the precedent of the EU Combined Joint Task Forces. Russia has contributed to a number of peacekeeping operations in Bosnia, Kosovo, Moldova, Abkhazia, Ossetia, Tajikistan, and elsewhere. CIS has delegated authority in some of these operations; impartiality has not been observed at all stages. Peace enforcement has sometimes been involved.
NATO-Russia Council mechanism has not worked well. The international community needs crisi response forces. NATO has 20,000. The EU has 1500. CSTO has 15,000, plus another 1500 peacekeepers. NATO and CSTO forces should exercise together and develop interoperability. There is a need for a coordination council of international organizations: NATO, CSTO and OSCE.
Jonathan Sisson, a former adviser to the Swiss Foreign Ministry for the Balkans and Caucusus, underlines the importance of the human rights legacy of protracted armed conflict. Most victims suffer long term health and social welfare impacts, they live in close proximity to perpetrators, the state is often corrupt and weak, there are parallel power structures with links to organized crime, a culture of violence and militarism prevails. Realizing the rights of victims and ensuring accountability are vital pieces of reconciliation.
Dealing with the past is a prerequisite for reconcilation. The guiding principles (“Joinet/Orentlicher”) are
- The right to know
- The right to justice
- The right to reparations
- Guarantees of non-reccurrence
Reconciliation is a process of conflict transformation. Dialogue should focus on acknowledging and addressing past absues, developing a shared vision, building a new basis for social identity, transforming oppressive structures and ideologies, and creating conditions for behavioral and attitudinal change.
There is a need to focus on the paradoxes of reconciliation:
- recognition of pain and articulation of a common future;
- concerns for exposing what happened and for letting go in favor of a renewed relationship;
- redressing wrongs balanced against the need for stability of the status quo;
- the burden of reconciliation is placed on the shoulders of victims.
The Turkish ambassador appeals for more attention to conflict resolution, which requires political will. The OSCE can help to trigger political will by creating long-term perspectives for the countries of the region. Regional actors need to initiate the reconciliation process. OSCE can contribute in Afghanistan, but Afghanistan cannot be OSCE’s raison d’être.
A Georgian expert wonders whether there is really a need for reconciliation. The local people don’t feel much need for it. The conflict had little to do with their needs. Settlement is required before reconciliation. The Armenian representative suggests briefings on conflict resolution and reconciliation in cases not under OSCE auspices. It is important to understand that human rights, especially non-discrimination and freedom of expression, are a prerequisite to reconciliation. Which reparations, collective or individual, are most effective?
The chair offers a Twitter/Facebook question: is reconciliation a grass roots affair, or is it between states? The Croatian ambassador doubts whether the new generation of leaders will be interested in reconciliation in former Yugoslavia. A Greek representative asks about what instruments the OSCE can offer by way of mediation support.
Sisson underlines the difference between post-conflict reconciliation and reconciliation attempted before a conflict settlement. But there are things that can be addressed before settlement: documentation and missing persons, for example. Reparations should be on the table from the first, even if it is not decided until after settlement. Witness protection is a vital component of ensuring the right to know, which also involves access to information in the state’s files. Collective reparations can be problematic because victims may not accept them as as a benefit. Both top-down and bottom-up efforts are needed.
Nikitin suggests international organizations may be satisfied with freezing conflict. Reconciliation is not always or immediately necessary. There may be a postponed solution. In Afghanistan half the population is under 15, so methods for reconciliation may have to be different. There is no need for reconciliation yet between Russia and Georgia. Reconciliation is a broader issue than between warring parties: we are still doing it for the Cold War.
Kai Eide notes that reconciliation is hard in a situation like Kosovo where there were no institutions at the end of the war. Likewise in Afghanistan, where there are no functioning legal institutions. This cements a situation that makes it hard to undertake reconciliation, which is necessarily both top-down and bottom-up. Facilitation is a better concept than mediation.
Fouéré underlines that reconciliation efforts are difficult and may have only limited impacts, but they are still necessary. In the Balkans there is an enormous amount of work still to be done, but the effort has to come from the region.
Lenarcic in closing underlines the importance of trust, ownership and inclusiveness (women and civil society) as prerequisites for reconciliation. Truth, justice and forgiveness (not revenge) are essential to successful reconciliation. If the international community wants to contribute it needs to be knowledgeable and have the confidence of the parties to the conflict.
I am not going to post on the fourth session, which is when I will present. My contribution has been posted below.
RSS - Posts
