[allAfrica.com] [celtel.com] Peace Building is Primarily the Responsibility of Local Actors Concord Times (Freetown) OPINION August 11, 2004 Posted to the web August 11, 2004 By Edward Sam Freetown International organizations and foreign powers should abandon the illusion that they are responsible for resolving intra-state crises. For better or worse, principally local actors such as national institutions and civil society must undertake this function. From my experience in the resolution of the conflict in Sierra Leone, peace building is not sustainable unless its form and content is shaped and embraced by all actors. The road to peace in our country was tortuous and prolonged because civil society was not particularly involved in the process at the outset. Evidence of this marginalization was the Abidjan Peace Agreement, which was concluded in 1996 to achieve a negotiated settlement to the bitter conflict. Yes, there was limited involvement of International Alert, a foreign based NGO, an outside partial one at that, but Sierra Leonean civil society played no significant role in that Abidjan peace process. I am bringing this scenario forward because, it is definitely germane for local civil society to share their experiences in what they can do to facilitate the resolution of conflicts with other organizations in the sub-region. In other words they should be seen playing a dominant role. The case of Ivory Coast is my focus in this essay. Up to the time of writing, not much has been heard about the role of civil society in bridging the gap and facilitating the process in the Ivorian conflict. While individuals and groups embroiled in the conflict are obviously concerned about physical and economic security, they also crave respect, acknowledgement and affirmation. They want to be involved in decisions that affect their lives, and they resent being treated as the object of some body else's plans. The success of the negotiated settlement of the Sierra Leone conflict lends credence to practically the high level of involvement of the National Commission for Democracy and Human Rights and Civil Society collaboration, leading the way in terms of national consultations and eliciting the views of the citizens, to make the process locally owned. The production of the report of that august conference titled "The Road To Peace: Report of A National Consultative Conference on the Peace Process in Sierra Leone" is relevant in this context. In our own national context, Sierra Leonean civil society reacted to the horrors of January 6, 1996 by endless flow of presentations on how to end the conflict and achieve sustainable peace. The discussions were bitter particularly in the context of massive human rights abuses that were still fresh in the minds of the people. What is important is the fact that Sierra Leonean civil society has useful lessons to share in the on-going Ivorian negotiations to peace. For such a document to have the desired national character, the NCDHR judged it necessary to conduct sensitization exercises among civil society groups in the regions with the aim of preparing them to provide informed contributions to the peace process and enabling them to attain group consensus on various issues at district and regional levels before the participation of their representatives in the National Consultative Conference in Freetown. Using the Abidjan Peace Accord, signed between the Government of Sierra Leone and the Revolutionary United Front on 30th November 1996 as the frame of reference. This national consultative conference, unique in the history of our country provided a national platform for the first time since the civil conflict started, for frank expression and exchange of views specially focusing on the peace process. It was also specifically designed to obtain consensus on issues at the district and regional levels that would serve as a mandate empowering the representatives at the National Consultative Conference to effectively represent their various groups. A specific mandate was carved for the International Community. And this mandate called upon the international community to monitor the Sierra Leone peace process and to provide financial and technical assistance for post conflict rehabilitation and reconstruction. Like many other African civil wars, international mediation tends to focus more on solutions than the process. This is what we have seen in Accra where there had been high-level negotiations among the belligerent factions in Ivory Coast, pressing for rapid results and endeavour to win the parties' consent on their proposals. The most extreme version of this approach, as far as I know, entails the application of coercive leverage through sanctions or military force. Whatever the utility of leverage in a given situation, mediators undermine their credibility and effectiveness when they take such steps. May be we can examine the number of failed mediations in the context where civil society had been down played. Accords concluded under duress will have scanty value in the absence of a genuine commitment to peace and reconciliation. Democracy cannot logically or practically be imposed on a society. In the case of the Lome Peace Agreement concluded between the Government of Sierra Leone and the RUF, there was not only civil society participation in national dialogue but there was also civil society participation in the search for lasting solutions. The search for durable peace has no quick fix answers. In light of the above, external interventions should be reoriented from the delivery of products to the facilitation of processes. In the context of peace making, this would entail supporting national dialogue and problem solving rather than prescribing solutions based on a range of experiences from truly African leaders but does into engage national dialogue, consultations and consensus building. Conflict resolution methodology has no single channel. We wait to see how the recently concluded process in Accra will work, and hopefully, we envision that in the true African spirit, it will work for all the parties involved in the conflict. However, it should be recognized that subsequent peace-building efforts be directed towards strengthening the capacity of government and civil society through the transfer of skills and knowledge that are home or regionally grown. The greatest need therefore, is no capacity building in the areas of national and local governance. In spite of the fact that so much undocumented conflict resolution information and materials exist in Sierra Leone, the little knowledge can be shared to enhancing the way forward in the Ivorian crises, and to build bridges and mend broken relationships in affected communities in the pursuit of restoring the offender, the victim and the community as a national goal. Sustainable peace hinges and emphasizes the active involvement of civil society in forging ahead programmes and infrastructure that engages a wider segment of the local population to peace making and peace building measures.   ==============================================================================  Copyright © 2004 Concord Times. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). ==============================================================================