LESSONS FOR PEACE AGREEMENTS
A number of lessons also emerge from UN experience regarding substantive aspects of peace agreements that are likely to lead to successful implementation.
Resolution of all major issues with sufficient detail and specificity
‘To be effective,' argues Vendrell, ‘a peace agreement has to deal with the causes of conflict.
It has to either address the causes directly or establish a new system and institutions that will enable these causes to be dealt with over time' (2002). Moreover, peace agreements that are more complete are easier to implement, since more of the issues in contention have been worked out and agreed to ahead of time, leaving less to be decided during implementation. ‘Lack of specificity in a peace agreement,' argues Ajello, ‘is a recipe for endless discussions and disputes during the implementation phase' (1999: 640). He suggests that the additional time required to make a peace agreement more specific during the mediation phase is worthwhile and creates a more solid base for the implementation process (2001). As Legwaila (2001) notes, the UN Mission in Ethiopia/Eritrea, for which he was responsible, suffered from a lack of specificity in the agreement (brokered by the USA and the OAU) about the boundaries of the Temporary Security Zone, which resulted in endless problems for the mission.Agreement on how power will be shared
How power is to be shared is also crucial. Careful consideration should be given to finding a model that fits each situation. Based on her experience in Angola, Anstee advises that an election in a post-conflict situation ‘should never be based on a “winner takes all” formula. The losers must also have a stake in the future stability and prosperity of the country through a judicious system of powersharing' (1996: 607). Hampson recommends that a settlement must, at a minimum, ‘establish a level playing field and allow equal and fair access to the political process by formerly excluded groups.
Everybody must have a sense that they can participate and that political life is not zero sum. The new rules about political competition must also be seen as fair and just' (1996: 218).Acceptability to the majority of constituents
A peace agreement should also be acceptable to the majority of constituents. Although the peace process in Guatemala involved a special role for civil society, the private sector was not part of the process and this led to problems in implementation when the Constitutional Amendment required to carry out the provisions in the peace accords was defeated in a referendum (Arnault, 2001). As mentioned earlier, this highlights the importance of having all major stakeholders involved, in some way, in the process.
Clear guidelines about implementation priorities and timetables
Peace agreements also need to contain clear guidelines about implementation priorities and realistic implementation timetables. A common problem is that timetables are too ambitious and when deadlines are missed, ‘the parties begin to doubt each other's political will to comply with the settlement' (Arnault, 2001). Agreements should spell out how the implementation schedules for different issues interlock with one another, because they often involve ‘reciprocal concessions.' As de Soto (2001) explains: ‘If the demobilization of guerrillas is contingent upon their receiving - immediately upon hand-over of their weapons - some sort of financial assistance, you had better be sure that you know if and when that assistance can and will be delivered.'
A lead role for the UN in implementation
Most RSGs agree that, in cases where the UN is expected to have a role in implementation, it should broker the peace agreement or have sufficient input to ensure that it is, indeed, implementable. ‘Many of the problems encountered in Angola,' laments Anstee, ‘were rooted in the nature of the Bicesse Accords, in the negotiation of which the UN played no role. The thesis that the main responsibility for implementing the Accords must be vested in the two parties in the conflict presupposed a Boy Scout's code of honour in circumstances hardly conducive to the evolution of the Boy Scout spirit.' She recommends that the UN should ‘never accept any role in the implementation of a peace accord unless the organization has been fully involved in the negotiation of its terms and its mandate' (1996: 532-533).
An implementation mechanism for resolving disputes
Finally, peace agreements should contain an effective mechanism to manage the inevitable disagreements that arise in implementation. ‘A strong political structure should be established to manage the peace process,' says Ajello. In Mozambique, the Supervision and Monitoring Commission was composed of the two parties, as well as representatives of the OAU, France, Italy, Germany, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States and chaired by Ajello, as the Special Representative of the Secretary-General. He sums up the benefits of this approach:
This relationship allowed the international community to speak with a single voice and this support and unity of intent produced two important results. The first was that the parties' perception of my role changed dramatically. I was subsequently viewed by the two parties, not as the delegate of a bureaucracy in New York, but as a representative of the international community. (2001)
A wide variety of mechanisms have been effectively established in subsequent peace missions to carry out similar functions.