CONCLUSION
This chapter addresses the impact of NGOs on conflict resolution and peace-building at the international level, through the lens of direct peace-making. The summation of the Cold War instituted a shift at the end of the 20th century, with nonstate actors playing an increasingly significant role in the mediation, management, and resolution of intra-state violent conflict (Ahmed & Potter 2006; DeMars 2005).
International observers have recognized this shift, and we have seen the engagement of NGOs affecting conflict dynamics in the past, as well as the present. This trend will certainly continue and likely increase in the future. Researchers now have enough examples of NGO intervention to understand that this trend developed in a post-Cold War environment in which the UN system needed to more effectively handle political transitions and the challenges of global change. Credible, trustworthy NGOs provided a service to UN member states by offering a sort of change management system. Yet, questions of accountability and effectiveness were raised and concerns over coordination were expressed (Edwards & Hulme 1996; Fox & Brown 1998; Goodhand 2006; Jordan & Van Tuijl 2006; Mendelson & Glenn 2002).It has been noted that successful mediators engage properly in an intractable conflict setting through analysis at ripe moments and coordinating with others while serving with commitment, resources, persistence, and experience (Bercovich 2002). It has also been observed that success is highly dependent on the participation in the process of recognized and legitimate leaders and on the capacity of the process to include all relevant actors to avoid the emergence of spoilers (Stedman
2002). The involvement of major powers must be constructive and the outcome of the mediation must not run counter to the prevailing interests of these powerful actors.
The NGOs examined in this chapter have been able to positively respond to all these criteria for success, creating, as previously stated, a new set of possibilities for states both in conflict and involved in peace processes.NGO involvement in international conflicts emerged primarily due to the connectivity capabilities of these organizations, which could offer a comparative relational advantage to UN member states that employed their services (DeMars 2005). Theunparalleled access of certain organizations (such as Sant'Egidio in Mozambique) allows for dialogue with all stakeholders, including politicians, technocrats, media, and civil society, as well as nonstate opposition movements (Bartoli 1999, 2005). NGOs can facilitate this by creating chains between actors who normally would not communicate. A conflict resolution system is always about managing change, and the connectivity created by NGO involvement creates conditions for change that would not be possible otherwise. NGOs also provide a bridge between the formal and informal dimensions of politics, while providing inclusive legitimacy (Riccardi 1999). Conflict occurs due to a breakdown in the polity, creating a system in which certain actors don't have access to political legitimacy. NGOs add legitimacy through inclusion of all actors in the political process, while not being bound by the constraints of the political system. Because this process of NGO involvement in conflict resolution has already happened, there is now a track record that allows us to examine specific engagements. Conflict dynamics in Burundi, Mozambique, and Ivory Coast reflected the relevant role of NGOs in the management of the relationships between state and nonstate actors. The role of NGOs in these conflicts expanded the range of choices for the various actors so that both state and non-state actors had access to opportunities they otherwise would not have had (Morozzo Della Rocca
2003).
This chapter contends that, for NGOs to be successful in engaging conflict at the state and international level, four conditions must be met.
First, the NGO must be credible in its claims. Reputation is extremely important, as evidenced by the Carter Center's initiatives in Venezuela as well as Sant'Egidio's recent work in Ivory Coast. Second, each of the successful NGOs we have discussed places a high value on confidentiality. A confidential, rather than public, process takes precedence in each of the NGOs' operating procedures. Third, an NGO must be able to work effectively with state actors. This condition is met through legitimacy. Some level of legitimacy allows states to work with the NGO in a quasi-diplomatic relationship. The last condition is the NGOs' capacity. Linked similarly to the first condition, the NGO must be able to deliver. When revisiting each of the three NGOs directly involved in peace processes, we see that none of them comes from a pacifist background. Rather, these NGOs emerged from a political milieu in which there is no timidity regarding power. The use of force is reframed not as an aberration, but as something that is against the interest of the parties themselves. Each NGO seems to be able to offer some form of principled politics, upholding the ideal of politics framed in the UN charter (Akashi, 1995-96). These organizations work to reduce the relevance of violence.The growth of NGO involvement in mediation and peace processes has also presented unforeseen challenges. One of the areas of greatest concern in literature dedicated to NGOs and their role in conflict resolution is accountability. Another area of concern emerges out of the attempt of some governments to “use” the NGO framework to hide their direct involvement. An interesting development in the growth of nonstate actors is the tension created by this exploitation of the NGO model. The difference between genuinely independent and impartial NGOs and state-sponsored ones is not always clear. This is why some observers have proposed the establishment of an “NGO rating system” that would do for global civil society what independent credit rating agencies do for the global financial system (Edwards & Hulme 1996; Fox & Brown 1998; Goodhand 2006; Jordan & Van Tuijl 2006; Mendelson & Glenn 2002).
Another area of concern is that, together with actors who have achieved the legitimacy necessary to conduct high-level, discreet peace-building work, there is an undisciplined offering of services by a plethora of other actors—NGOs, states, and international organizations—who seek to gain recognition in the field (Van Tongeren 2001). The prestige that is afforded to state and nonstate actors who are perceived as successful in mediation and peace-building creates a positive incentive to intervene. The general trend of a growing number of actors who are willing to spend time and resources for meaningful peace-making activities is to be saluted as an important development. However, at times, this proliferation creates de facto competition and may disincentivize attempts at horizontal dissemination of information and best practices. This hesitancy to share information is further complicated by the confidentiality concerns that make actors effective interveners, in that they comply with the prudent use of information. Our interviews with practitioners revealed internal debates and institutional concerns involving the ethics of information sharing. State and nonstate interveners run the risk of having their motivations for engagement questioned when so much international clout is at stake. One practitioner interviewed played on the Cold War era “arms race” theme by likening the current state of international mediation to a “peace race” in which honest-broker nations are realizing the enormous respect gained through their initiatives and thus actively seek more involvement in peace-building. Obviously this trend, which is positive per se, must be carefully and constructively managed (Aall 1996).
The ultimate efficacy of NGOs operating in conflict resolution capacities must be balanced by the awareness that no process can be successfully accomplished by an individual entity operating alone. What the NGO process facilitates is the creation of a framework for continuity, while bringing together more people to work on a particular conflict resolution or peace-building project.
All of the NGOs examined in this chapter have an explicit orientation towards conflict resolution. More importantly, when evaluating efficacy, each organization has a meaningful track record in facilitating contacts, dialogue, and agreements between state and nonstate actors (Edwards & Hulme 1996). The four organizations have demonstrated ongoing relational investment in several countries well before an actual, full-fledged initiative starts up. Another important aspect of the NGOs we have evaluated is that all maintain ongoing, constructive relationships with governments and international organizations, and that the UN system, in particular, has dealt with these NGOs frequently and constructively.Although we have focused our attention on NGOs with direct involvement in peace processes, the impact of NGOs involved in indirect peace processes has also been significant. While the Community of Sant'Egidio, the Carter Center, the Center for Humanitarian Dialogue, and the Crisis Management Initiative are engaged in quite specific work - namely, state-level, Track 1 diplomacy being done by NGOs - there are thousands of other global NGOs engaged in excellent work, particularly at the societal level. Organizations such as Search for Common Ground,14 InternationalAlert,15 the West African Network for Peace building (WANEP),16 and The African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes (ACCORD),17 have taken leading roles in conflict resolution and peace-building at the societal level. At the same time, the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC)18 and the European Center for Conflict Prevention (ECCP)19 seek to address the interface between civil society and governments. Acting as a conduit between conflicted parties and international policy makers, the International Crisis Group20 has identified its own niche in the field of conflict resolution and peace-building through independent monitoring of conflict zones and the provision of timely policy advice to international decision makers best positioned to act.
Practitioners debate the role NGOs will play in future international peace-building efforts, but agree that the current trend of NGO involvement will continue in the context of the economically developing world. Some practitioners believe that UN member states will seek to engage their resources most heavily in conflicts that are perceived as more strategically important to their individual interests, while passing authority for other engagements to regional and subregional organizations. Other practitioners disagree that strategic and nonstrategic involvement of UN states is an issue, but acknowledge NGO shortcomings. NGOs will continue to play an active role as conveners and mediators in peace-building efforts, but as one practitioner pointed out, NGOs will never possess the ability to implement agreements (Hampson 1996). States will continue to bring clout to the peace agreements, but the postagreement phase offers a niche for different NGO engagement, both in support of the peace process through monitoring and with further facilitation in parallel to the more traditional work of development and postconflict reconstruction. One practitioner said a key issue is that the international focus is always on the agreement, while what comes after the agreement is what matters most. Implementation of agreements often involves more mediation than that involved in getting to the actual agreement (Bercovitch, in this volume).
Fifteen years beyond Sant’Egidio’s successful engagement in the Mozambique peace process, NGOs continue to play prominent roles in conflict resolution and peace-building. SanLEgidio broke new ground in Mozambique by “inventing” an option for Track 1 diplomacy that was previously only informally or occasionally available to official actors. More is to come in terms of NGO contributions to international conflict resolution. Three important developments have occurred since the end of the Cold War that will ensure the continued prominence of NGO involvement in peace processes: the proliferation of activist governments seeking to be involved in international peace-building initiatives, the proliferation of NGOs, and the growing number of credible and legitimate former heads of democratic states who are willingly engaging in peace-building work. This growth will offer much to the marketplace of ideas, presenting options unthinkable only 15 years ago. Such a diverse convening of thought has failed to exist in the past, but the careful management of this new marketplace may provide dynamic possibilities for the mediation and resolution of future violent conflicts.