DIRECT INVOLVEMENT IN PEACE PROCESSES: THE CRISIS MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE (CMI)
Note: This chapter is built upon open-source material and will be followed by an interview with CMI founder Martti Ahtisaari.
The Crisis Management Initiative was founded in 2002 by former President of Finland, Martti Ahtisaari, as an organization that works to strengthen the capacity of the international community in crisis management and conflict resolution by using traditional settings and innovative strategies of engagement (Balachandra et al.
2005). Similar to the Carter Center, CMI is able to operate at a level above other nongovernmental organizations due to the formidable political capital Mr Ahtisaari built during his tenure as president. He continues to be very active in the international scene, especially in the Balkans where he is leading efforts to clarify the final status for Kosovo.CMI's work is divided into two categories: Crisis Management and Conflict Resolution programs and the Martti Ahtisaari Rapid Reaction Facility. Recognizing that, in an era of globalization, distant threats are just as serious as more locally defined ones, CMI's conflict resolution program focuses on previously established networks, particularly within civil society and regional organizations, to monitor potentially violent conflicts and strengthen and facilitate networks of actors committed to peace-building (DeMars 2005). This implicit acknowledgement of the preeminence of prevention colors all CMI initiatives and is illustrated through partnerships with the European Union and NGOs engaged in conflict resolution and peace-building (Weiner 1998).
Speaking about the field of crisis management, Ahtisaari says the EU has taken the frontrunner’s role, particularly in the development of a comprehensive crisis management system. An important dialogue has commenced on how to better utilize NGO experience and expertise in the work of multilateral and regional organizations.
During the past several years, the European Union has contributed, through its civilian crisis management tools, to solving conflicts and assisting war-torn societies in building sustainable peace and democracy (Reychler & Paffenholz 2001). At the same time, NGOs have carried out similar tasks. Therefore, there is a tangible need to achieve greater conceptual coherence between the overall strategy and goals of civilian crisis management efforts of the EU and nongovernmental organizations.President Ahtisaari explains that civilian crisis management policies and practices are currently being developed and debated among many stakeholders. The traditional approach towards civilian crisis management emphasized issues such as police training, border control, and peace monitoring. At the same time, there seemed to be a growing need for broader peace-building strategies that treat the development of societies in a comprehensive manner. In these postconflict development efforts, the role of local civil society is pivotal. Civil society forms a large, diverse, and fragmented body of organizations. NGOs vary from the very large or strong to the extremely small or weak in all aspects, including legitimacy, reliability, aims, roles, staff, financial resources, capacity, and geographical reach (Van Tongeren
2001).
The roles of civil society actors in civilian crisis management cover the broad spectrum of engagement in early warning, prevention, mediation, monitoring, civilian peacekeeping, and reconciliation. While civil society roles and the actors performing them are numerous and diverse, they typically share a common approach that is community-based or “bottom-up.” It follows that civil society organizations often have unique access to the “ground truth” and are well placed to monitor and potentially mobilize public support. Furthermore, NGOs can provide informal mediation between participants (Merikallio 2006). They use mediation techniques, such as problem-solving workshops in which participants are encouraged to look beyond territorial, legal, or military issues and instead focus on issues such as the fears and insecurities, misperceptions and misunderstandings that underpin conflict.
This work can be vital in encouraging parties to adopt a more compromising approach prior to the beginning of formal negotiations.Ahtisaari envisions a greater role for research in peace-making and peace-keeping and believes it is currently under-utilized in the process. Academic institutions and think tanks can generate high-quality and policy-relevant analysis on the root causes of crises and develop innovative frameworks for crisis resolution and for overcoming broader instability (Kriesberg, in this volume). They can also gather and distribute information and expertise within existing crisis management field operations.
There is much uncertainty about the actual added value and effectiveness of NGOs and civil society actors in peace-building and peace mediation, according to Ahtisaari. He recognizes that NGOs are able to fulfill a variety of conflict management roles by serving as early warning monitors of impending conflict; channels of communication; mediators or facilitators of official or unofficial negotiations; promoters of the process of reconciliation through grassroots engagements; and those who strengthen civil society in the postconflict environment to nurture the culture of peace (Ahmed & Potter 2006). NGOs can also, through their experience, contribute to innovative conflict management and resolution strategies (Fitzduff & Church 2004). Local NGOs can be instrumental in addressing the escalation of violence and emergence of war, and they can mobilize political will for peace while developing options and strategies for response by strengthening constituencies for peace (Committee for Conflict Transformation Support 2001).
However, Ahtisaari understands there are also limits to the involvement of NGOs (Jordan & Van Tuijl 2006). An oft-cited criticism is that civil society actors sometimes start processes that are beyond their skills and abilities. They may also be too small, too isolated or lack the capacity to work with each other.
The legitimacy of NGOs as actors is sometimes questioned as well, which hampers their involvement (DeMars 2005). The fact that civil society organizations may be perceived as powerless by many parties to a conflict may increase their attractiveness to the antagonists: if the attempt to open the dialogue fails, the parties lose little by way of reputation or potential inducements to settle (Fox & Brown 1998).Ahtisaari sees a growing potential for previously untapped sectors of society to be engaged in peace-making and peace-building, including the business sector. There is a growing acknowledgement that although they are often bound up with conflict dynamics, local business actors in conflict-prone countries can also have an interest in securing peace. To date, this complex relationship between local business and conflict has not been well understood. For donors and development agencies, there is much to be learned from sharing experiences on how to integrate a role for the private sector around peacebuilding and growth in an immediate postconflict environment (Goodhand 2006). In these situations, there are real opportunities for changes in policies and institutions that affect the private sector, and experience is showing that there is a role for the domestic private sector in crisis prevention and growth.
The most prominent activity of mediation undertaken by CMI was in Aceh where President Ahtisaari offered the effective formula of “self-government” as a way to frame the parameters of a solution amenable to all parties. The Aceh peace process can serve as a good example of both cooperation between the first and second tracks of diplomacy and of the cooperation between European and Asian countries in crisis management (Mendelson & Glenn 2002).
President Ahtisaari acted as facilitator during the negotiation phase of theAceh peace process. In January 2005, the government of Indonesia and the Free Aceh Movement (Gerakan Aceh Merdeka or GAM) met in Helsinki to discuss the conflict, which had lasted for almost 30 years.
The December 2004 tsunami had devastated Aceh just a month earlier. The government and GAM decided to stop fighting and work towards building a fair and democratic society. The conflict ended, as the negotiating parties promised, and peace has brought hope and the possibility for a new life for the Achenese people (Merikallio 2006).With so many peace processes failing in the negotiation phase, PresidentAhtisaari was often asked how CMI was able to facilitate acceptance on the Helsinki agreement during such a short negotiation process. He identified six primary reasons for the success of the negotiation process:
1. Thepoliticalwilloftheparties.
2. The skills and resolve of the negotiators in both delegations.
3. Serendipitoustiming.
4. The posttsunami environment, which brought about heightened international attention on Aceh and a sense of urgency to resolve the conflict.
5. A multitrack process: the flexibility of the NGO facilitator combined with the leverage of the regional organizations and key states. CMI's networks in the EU and with other NGOs and research organizations were invaluable. Also key was the support of the Finnish Government from the beginning.
6. The well-functioning monitoring mechanisms provided by the EU and the five ASEAN countries.
According to Ahtisaari, it was crucial that the peace agreement was followed by a credible international monitoring mission that ensured both parties would implement their obligations (Paris 2004). The Aceh Monitoring Mission has become one of the key components of the implementation of the agreement and has shown that Asia and Europe can successfully act together in crisis management. Early on in the negotiations, Ahtisaari realized that regional organizations - specifically the EU and ASEAN - could have a significant role in the process. It was equally evident that the organizations could only have this role collaboratively, possibly with support of countries like Norway and Switzerland. Their combined efforts provided the expertise, cultural knowledge and credibility that were needed for the assignment.
The Aceh Monitoring Mission is so far the best and most concrete example of cooperation between Europe and Asia in the field of peace-building and crisis management, according to Ahtisaari. First and foremost, the Mission has had an indispensably important role in monitoring the implementation of the Aceh PeaceAccord and thereby consolidating the process within its first vital months (Hampson 1996). This was the very purpose of the mission. Ahtisaari believes this was not, by any means, the only important outcome that the monitoring cooperation has generated. This Europe-Asia teamwork has proven the strength of the regional approach, highlighting the growing potential of cooperation between Europe and Asia in other areas and providing valuable lessons that can be utilized in other civilian crisis management operations.