Universal frameworks for peacemaking rarely lead to sustainable peace. Evidence from Africa’s Great Lakes region suggests that the standard Western peace formula – blaming bad governance and ‘structural violence’ for the conflict – fails to address the complexity of African politics and the underlying economic conditions that lead to violence.

An article from Oxford University, UK, analyses peace initiatives in Rwanda, Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo, countries which have experienced recurrent conflicts since the end of colonial rule. The author describes how recent peace agreements and the deployment of United Nations (UN) peacekeeping missions have failed to bring stability.

Western analyses of African warfare present it as a barbaric regression of Africans to pre-modern tribalism. Genocidal violence in Africa thus represents state failure or collapse, linked to the greed or grievances of the political elite and their associated social groups. But it should not be forgotten that Western governments have a long and dishonourable history of engagement in African conflicts such as that in the Congo and Rwanda. Further, Western companies have profited enormously from African natural resources while standards of living and life expectancies have declined on the continent, making conflict more likely.

The UN has a simplistic approach to peace. Peace-building is often associated with ‘reconstruction’, a term suggesting a return to a supposed previous state of security and stability. However, given African political realities, it is often transformation – and not reconstruction – that is required for long-term peace and stability.

The peace-building model in Africa relies on power-sharing between the warring parties. This often means dividing the transitional institutions of governance between political parties and rebel movements. However this often causes:

• sidelining of civil society groups – especially women-headed – from peace agreements, reinforcing ethnic-based politics and allowing those responsible for gender-based violence to escape justice
• the failure of demilitarisation, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) programmes, especially when donors do not honour promises of demobilisation payments.

Those who seek to bring peace to Africa must address the structural forces that lead to conflict. In the non-ideological wars of the twenty-first     century, peace and social transformation will only be attainable if the African people are brought fully into their peace processes.

It is important to:

• understand that peace is a process as opposed to just an abrupt end to conflict
• use the framework provided by UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (Women, Peace and Security) to assert women’s rights in reconstruction processes
• ensure that participation is not confined to elite and urban-based women’s organisations
• develop regional peace frameworks, as all Central African conflicts are closely interrelated
• accept refugees and migrants as citizens and allow them access to services and resources.

Source(s):
‘Challenges to Peace: Conflict Resolution in the Great Lakes Region of Africa’, Third World Quarterly, Vol.27, No.2, pages 303-319, by Patricia Daley, 2006

id21 Research Highlight: 23 April 2007

Further Information:
Patricia Daley
School of Geography
Oxford University Centre for the Environment
South Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3BY, UK

Tel: +44 (0)1865 275993
Fax: +44 (0)1865 275885
Contact the contributor: Patricia.Daley@ouce.ox.ac.uk

Oxford University, UK

Other related links:
'Understanding conflict: are international NGOs out of their depth?'

'Why wait for post-conflict reconstruction?'

'Poverty vs. conflict: understanding Africa's wars'

ELDIS Conflict and Security Resource Guide

Sensitivity Analysis of the Empirical Literature on Civil War Onset [PDF}

World Bank Conflict Prevention and Reconstruction Unit

Find more information in the African Conflict Journal