Engaging armed groups was on the agenda for students at the London School of Economics recently when Sophie Haspeslagh, Conciliation Resources’ Policy Analyst, shared her knowledge and experience during a seminar.
In discussion with Masters students, Sophie highlighted that humanitarian protection, pragmatism and sustainability of peace processes (as opposed to military-only solutions) were all valid reasons for taking this step. Key to success is building the negotiating capacity of those involved.
However, the issue of proscription – or the act of putting an armed group on a list of designated terrorist organisations – presents several key challenges to meaningfully engaging armed groups in negotiations. Proscription is a blunt instrument and can be counterproductive, constraining as it does the potential for peace initiatives.
In cases where there is freedom to draw armed groups into dialogue, those seeking to engage them must first try to understand their background and the way they operate and make decisions. Failure to appreciate the factions within and motivations of armed groups can lead to compromised outcomes. Such was the case in the 2006 Juba talks involving elements of the LRA, as recently examined in our publication Dealing with complexity in peace negotiations.
For more information about these issues read Accord 16 Choosing to engage: armed groups and peace processes.
An armed group’s confidence in political dialogue cannot be built overnight. It demands a significant investment of time and energy and constant follow-up.
Alastair Crooke, founder of Conflicts Forum