For the last seven years, the OAU has been known to sponsor conferences on conflict resolution on a regular basis. High level officials and staff of the OAU have been trained in the techniques of conflict resolution. How the OAU high level delegation responsible for resolving the Eritrea- Ethiopia conflict did not invoke or employ the technique is beyond me.
This article is a critique of the OAU on the Eritrea-Ethiopia conflict mediation initiative , focusing only on the process - the peace process. It does not attempt to tackle questions with regards to the quality of leadership at the OAU, the corruption that some writers claim will eventually bring the organization down, and the sheer lack of professionalism within the almost four decades old organization.
What was the OAU mediation effort about?
One thing is clear - the
so called OAU mediation exercise has not been about mediation. How can it be
called mediation when the OAU jury clearly subverted its own peace initiative
by openly taking sides with one of the protagonists. The OAU did not
demonstrate conflict resolution skills when it failed to:
The enabling elements in any mediation effort are secrecy and balance. Mediation is about fairness. The key lesson here is that if any of the protagonists do not believe in the integrity of the mediators or the process, there is no mediation no matter how hard you try to facilitate. All these elements were annulled when Eritrea determined that it was getting letters from the OAU that looked like they were drafted by Ethiopia. What is more, major discrepancies in the contents of subsequent letters and communication delays in favor of Ethiopia made Eritrea all the more suspicious. In a situation like this, the value of the communique for Eritrea is not even worth the paper it is written on.
Add to this the fact that the major players in the conflict were not negotiating face to face. This is absurd; nobody can forgive the OAU for allowing this to happen. As it is, mediating with both parties present is tough enough. Try to imagine what would be accomplished the way the OAU mediation effort was set up. To say the least, the Eritrea-Ethiopia mediation initiative was programmed to fail from the get go. For Eritrea, it was an uphill battle from start to finish.
It is unfortunate that a crisis of this magnitude was not handled with creativity, vision, native wisdom and intelligence. The OAU blew it. This was a golden opportunity for the OAU not only to declare victory upon resolving the conflict, but also to be visionary enough to create a precedence, thereby coming up with a working template that would help in resolving similar conflicts in the future.
Problem Description
When two or more parties have different points
of view, there is a Potential for conflict. Under normal circumstances, most
people instinctively react by presenting their own solution or recommend a
certain course of action to aggressively defend their position. If one of the
protagonists involved is in a position of strength, that party will tend to use
their position to force a solution that supports their own vested interests.
The end result is one party "wins" and the other party "loses". The idea of
playing zero-sum game, where one party wins and the other loses are inimical to
the concept of conflict resolution. Besides being characterized as ad hoc, the
problem with an unjust solution like this is that the losers will regroup to
haunt the winner in the long run.
Techniques of Conflict Resolution
In a scenario like this, the challenge is to employ the techniques of conflict
resolution in order to address the Eritrea-Ethiopia conflict. The idea is to
come up with a compromise solution that reflects the concerns of both parties,
in effect, making both parties winners. But, how can one convince the parties
involved about the effectiveness of win-win negotiations? Incidentally,
negotiation does not mean bargaining; on the contrary, negotiating is the act
of creating optimum solutions.
The alternative is to start out by openly discussing ones needs, interests, and supporting evidence, and thereby soliciting the same from the other party. As a parallel exercise, constraints and commonly accepted norms would be noted. For example, accepted norms like "colonial boundaries are sacrosanct", as depicted in the OAU charter, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948 by the United Nations General Assembly, which states that: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood," need to be guiding principles.
With each party's needs, interests, and artifacts out on the table, it is then possible To use their collective creativity to find an optimum solution that address all or most of those needs, and interests. Unlike the OAU set up, both parties are part and parcel of the peace initiative from start to finish. The role of the mediators is to act as facilitators and to keep track of progress. In essence, the mediators help the protagonists to help themselves. But, how can the key players help themselves when the OAU mediation setup calls for no face-to-face meeting between them?
Once they are aware of the benefits of understanding the needs of both parties and then using their joint creativity to get the most for both, the parties involved would increase their trust relationship, thereby developing a habit of listening, empathizing, and looking for expressions of needs and interests.
Constructive Criticism
The spirit and execution of the OAU peace
initiative contradicted both the process And the requirements of the techniques
of conflict resolution. To begin with, the OAU high level delegation did not
clearly delineate and made public the details of the process of the peace
initiative apriori. No defined, documented, commonly understood and visibly
supported process was in place. The process adhered to was improvised
impromptu, and was not rigorously followed or enforced. In fact, as stated
above, the process was continuously massaged and molded to fit the needs and
interests of the Ethiopian side. What is more, visibility into the progress of
the initiative was minimal.
Secondly, the OAU setup did not allow the key players to be a part of the high level delegation. They were sporadically contacted at different stages of the mediation initiative. With proper training and understanding of both the conflict resolution techniques and the peace process, the protagonists could have added value to the outcome of a creative and meaningful settlement.
Thirdly, the high level delegation included a key member, Djibouti, that clearly exhibited a classic case of conflict of interest. Fourthly, statements of preconditions that kept coming from the Ethiopian side were meant to confuse the issues. In so doing, the Ethiopian party was trying to gain value by faking the facts on the ground. As it turned out, since the OAU high level delegation was not equipped with the needed skills in order to resolve the Eritrea-Ethiopia conflict, it was not a surprise to me that this whole exercise was a waste of time, resources, and ended up adding fuel to the raging fire. It was a total fiasco. I would like to close my comments with a simple question: Is the Organization Of African Unity part of the problem or part of the solution when it comes to resolving conflicts in Africa?