INTRODUCTION: TOWARD A THEORY OF DIRECT INVOLVEMENT OF NGOs IN THE MEDIATION OF PEACE PROCESSES

In March 2007, after the signature of the peace agreement in Ouagadougou, President Laurent Gbagbo of Cote d'Ivoire, in his “C'est la victoire du peuple” address to the nation, said: ‘Je remercie la Communaute Sant'Egidio, pour son action discrete mais efficace aupres des uns et des autres durant les discussions.'

Almost 15 years after the first recognized success of a nongovernmental organization (NGO) in facilitating the conclusion of a mediation process in Mozambique, the Community of Sant'Egidio - one of the most well-known international nongovernmental agencies operating in the area of conflict reso­lution - was again singled out as a contributor to a crucial international agreement.

While there is significant literature on NGOs as an expression of civil society, and while the roles and responsibilities of NGOs in the humanitarian and development sectors have attracted considerable attention (Anderson 1996,1999), the specific functions of NGOs in conflict resolution are often overlooked (Aall 1996). Certainly, there is abundant literature on conflict resolution pro­cesses involving civil society actors, including academia, think tanks, activist organizations, etc. (Arthur 1999; Cooper & Berdal 1993; Crocker et al. 1999). However, this chapter intentionally limits its scope to relatively rare but significant experiences of direct mediation by NGOs and the evolution of and trends relating to those processes. This section does not focus on techniques, such as interactive problem-solving workshops (Fisher 1997; Kelman 1996) or facilitated dialogues (Bohm 2004; Roberts 2002). Rather than look at NGOs through the prism of multitrack diplomacy (Diamond & McDonald 1996; McDonald 1991, 2003; Notter & McDonald 1996), this chapter analyzes a number of the still relatively rare cases of Track 1 processes in which state actors, international organizations, and nonstate actors claiming political space and recognition, used the mediation services of some NGOs.

The main theoretical thrust of this chapter is that, since the end of the Cold War, NGOs' role in international conflict resolution has become an established and important feature of a negotiations system that is adapting to the extraordinary challenges of state failures, state formation, and state cooperation (Hampson et al. 1999; Hume 1994). The four NGOs to be presented all emerged as relevant actors in the last 20 years as a response to a need for the mediation of internationally relevant conflict without the burdens and constraints of national interests and international organizations. The rise of these NGOs also responded to the vacuum left by states unable or unwilling to provide the services necessary to engage all actors involved in a given conflict in a constructive peace process (Bartoli 1999). According to this working hypothesis, NGOs devoted to conflict resolution - especially those actively pursuing mediation - came to exist because they were needed, and were kept alive by a marginal but significant stream of requests from actors lacking the political stability of an established nation-state (Jones 2002; Zartman 1995). A second hypothesis is that the use of NGOs in conflict resolution reveals a certain “maturity” of the state. Far from signaling an erosion of state power, a state that chooses to involve NGOs demonstrates its confidence: it can engage in a process of transformation using a plurality of actors according to its interests and goals (Akashi 1995-96; Ramsbotham et al. 2005; Rubin 2002).

While the strength of NGOs lies - with good reason - in their independence and impartiality, and their ability to access states while not actually being states, the degree of contact between states and NGOs varies greatly (Ropers 2001; Stephenson 2005). If we imagined a continuum, with on one end those NGOs completely independent from states and, on the other, those com­pletely identified with them, we would see that even the four cases presented in this chapter occupy different positions on the spectrum.

Communication-facilitation: a strategy in which the mediator simply facilitates the process of conflict resolution, which is funda­mentally driven by the involved parties them­selves; refrains from intrusive techniques; offers physical space for meetings; and opens channels of communication.

Procedural: a strategy characterized by a mediator’s substantive contributions to the peace process by not only convening and setting the agenda, but also influencing the outcome by making suggestions and conceiving of an effective process.

Directive: usually identified by the ten­dency of mediators to use their own power to broker an agreement that, while possibly being the best of all possible outcomes, is achieved by a certain degree of pressure leveled by the mediator.

An NGO’s decision to follow a specific style of mediation is likely contingent upon its cultural milieu (Avruch 1998) and its level of access to the specific direct power of one or more states (Crocker et al. 1999). NGOs’ access differs enormously, not only from case to case but also from period to period. All four organizations studied are operating in a rapidly changing environment, and while all have a meaningful degree of access to political leverage, the extent of that access will vary dramatically, depending especially on the cyclical redistribution of power in democratic states (think of the different kind of influence of former President Jimmy Carter depending on his relationship with those who succeeded him at the White House). However, it must be noted that the traditional distinction of mediators as individuals, states, and organizations is somewhat challenged by the emergence of organizations that are deeply connected with one founding figure (namely Carter and Martti Ahtisaari).

This is why NGOs should be considered not only in terms of their relation to the state but also, and more fundamentally, as an important part of the larger notion of civil society (Matthews 2001). As such, NGOs contribute to the fabric that comprises the very polity of a country and of the international community. This chapter focuses exclusively on well- reputed NGOs that have actually performed mediation in the international arena and does not take into account a number of other mem­bers of civil society that contribute greatly to conflict resolution. From the information gathering and distribution of the International Crisis Group to the polling services offered by the University of Liverpool, the network of WANEP and the highly specialized media programming of Search for Common Ground, the activities indirectly related to conflict resolution are numerous. In order to offer a deeper appreciation of a very specific contribution that NGOs have made through mediation, this chapter will intentionally be limited to the cases in which the following criteria apply:

• Capacity - [follow on]

• the organization is established and recognized as able to provide mediation services.

• Track record - [follow on]

• the organization has a track record of mediation services.

• Evaluation - [follow on]

• the organization has been subject to inde­pendent evaluation of its mediation services.

Methodologically, the chapter will draw upon material produced by the NGOs them­selves as a tribute to self-representation (Charmaz 1995; Glaser & Strauss 1967) and a contribution to further research, as well as interviews with representatives of the NGOs to ensure up-to-date information.

The examples of direct involvement in peace processes that best correspond to the above mentioned criteria are: the Community of Sant'Egidio,¹ the Carter Center,² the Center for Humanitarian Dialogue,³ and the Crisis Management Initiative.⁴ The choice of these entities among the many that are actively working in the vast (and ambiguous) area of conflict resolution and peace-building is the product of a series of qualitative interviews in which knowledgeable observers were asked to identify the organizations that best fulfilled the three criteria of capacity, track record, and evaluation.

It is clear that the distinction between those who had been directly and intention­ally involved in mediation and others is somewhat arbitrary. Organizations such as the Community of Sant'Egidio, which has more than 50,000 members, contribute greatly to societal processes of transformation as well as to mediation. Conversely, NGOs such as ACCORD⁵ played a significant role in actual peace processes in the region in addition to performing grassroots cultural work. For a more comprehensive view of the contributions of NGOs (especially in the area of prevention), the reader is invited to use the well-documented and extraordinarily well- connected site of the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC)⁶, whose secretariat is run by the European Center for Conflict Prevention (ECCP).⁷

The distinction is introduced to address a more theoretical argument about the “specificity” of the contribution of nonstate actors in political processes that result in the emergence of sustained peace (Aall 1996; Crocker et al.

One curious (and almost unexpected) consequence of the involvement of NGOs in mediation is that it can lead to a clearer comprehension of the mediation process itself, and therefore to a more accurate understanding of how the process works. Of the four areas identified by Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali (1992) in his Agenda for Peace (prevention, peace-making, peace-keeping, peace-building), the second area (peace-making) is the least theoretically developed and often remains limited to bio­graphical sketches, anecdotes, and individual cases (Jeong 2000). This chapter contends that NGOs, together with states and international organizations, could greatly contribute to an accurate understanding of how mediation work is actually done in the realm of peace­making, the conditions for success, and the relevant criteria for evaluation (Bercovitch 1989, 1996).

Considering the particular role of NGOs as mediators, it is helpful to refer to the sources of power available to them and to reflect on the comparative advantages they might have. Using the categorization of reward power, coercive power, expert power, legitimate power, referent power, and informational power (Rubin 1992⁸), it is clear that NGOs' access to these resources is uneven. In particular, their most striking deficit is in coercive power; NGOs lack the capacity to force action by parties, which significantly affects the decision-making process (Griffiths 2005). However, this lack of coercive capacity might actually explain why, under certain circumstances, parties in a conflict might prefer the use of services provided by an NGO rather than a more powerful actor. A “weak” mediation (that is to say, a process that does not impose a solution) might actually help the parties remain genuinely engaged in the process, thus paradoxically paving the way to a “stronger” process in which greater buy-in of the parties leads to lasting results (Hume 1994). Obviously, a mediation that is “weak” in terms of its capacity to coerce isn't necessarily weak in terms of its reward, expert, legitimate, referent, and informational powers. Different actors have different strengths, but there is no doubt that all of them have an impressive capacity to mobilize political capital that parties can use in their attempt to explore the possibilities of a peaceful solution to a conflict. Personal relationships, as well as good framing capacity - network and access as well as precedents and scenarios - are all elements of a strategy that is always new and yet contains recurrent elements (Morozzo Della Rocca 2003).

As it is explained in the literature, the medi­ation process is a form of assisted negotiation (Bercovitch 1996). The parties are in charge of the decision-making and the selection of the mediators, which is a significant element of the process (D'Amico & Rubinstein 1999). Why are NGOs a reasonable choice? Because they allow mediation among asymmetric parties, helping to bridge the legitimacy gap that separates state and nonstate actors (Bartoli 1999). As it is clear in the case of Mozambique (and confirmed in many other cases), it is at times advantageous for parties in a conflict to consider the mediation services of an NGO that has a strong enough international reputation that it can offer guarantees to the nonstate actor in need of international recognition, but is not so official as to infringe on state sovereignty (Riccardi 1999). Also, the dedication of NGOs with longer-term investment strategies can result in more fruitful results, as opposed to those achievable by official actors with short operation timetables (Matthews 2001).

Considering the three categories of power identified by Kenneth Boulding: destructive, productive and integrative (Boulding 1989), NGOs clearly have their greatest strength in the third. They are able to help parties, not through a series of threats and rewards, but rather through a relational process of transformation that assists the parties in re­framing their own political relations and the conditions of their polity as well as their recognition by the international community (Arnson & Whitfield 2005). Sociologically, it is helpful to note that in recent years, extraordinary growth has been observed in the availability of individuals holding important public political roles in their respective countries and/or in international organizations to conflict prevention, resolution, and peace­building activities. One reason for this sudden growth is the accession of new democracies to a rotation in the distribution of power that allows for many former presidents and prime ministers to remain politically active after leaving office.

Former US President Jimmy Carter and Former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari are outstanding examples of how the talents of a proven politician can serve the international system in creative ways through an NGO. There are other cases of the phenomenon not mentioned in this chapter but that have the potential to offer similar outcomes. We can identify the Club de Madrid,⁹ the Assembly of the Parliament of Cultures in Istanbul,¹⁰ the Forum 2000,¹¹ the Peres Centre for Peace,¹² Global Panel,¹³ and the Global Leadership Foundation, among others.