Half a Century of Peace in Botswana

Africa is the world’s most conflict-affected region, with one third of all civil and interstate conflicts since 1946 taking place on the continent. This bleak picture is not all-embracing, however. Surrounded by seven neighbours plagued by conflicts, Botswana, Malawi and Zambia constitute a ‘Zone of Peace’ spared from violent conflict since they gained independence over half a century ago. This article will describe the main characteristics of Botswana’s peace and chart some of its causes.Causes of Peace: The Botswana, Zambia and Malawi 'Zone of Peace

Masters of War : The Role of Elites in Sudan’s Communal Conflicts

Why do communal conflicts turn violent in some regions but not in others? Communal conflicts pose a severe threat to human security and kill thousands of people each year, but our understanding of this phenomenon is still limited. In particular, we lack knowledge about why some of these conflicts become violent while others are resolved peacefully. This study addresses this knowledge gap and has a novel approach by addressing subnational variations that are unexplained by previous research. The theoretical framework combines insights from three different perspectives focusing on the role of the state, elite interactions, and conditions for cooperation over common resources. Empirically, the research question is investigated by combining within- and between-region analyses of three Sudanese regions: Darfur, Eastern Sudan, and Greater Upper Nile. Despite sharing several similar characteristics, communal conflicts have killed thousands in Darfur and Greater Upper Nile but only a few dozen in Eastern Sudan. The empirical analysis builds on extensive material collected during fieldwork. This study generates several conclusions about the importance of government conduct and how state behavior contributes to the prevalence of violent communal conflicts. It finds that when governments act in a biased manner – favoring certain communities over others – interactions between central and local elites as well as among local elites are disrupted. Unconstructive elite interactions, in turn, have negative effects on three mechanisms that are crucial for communal cooperation. First, when the regime is biased, communal affiliation, rather than the severity and context of a violation, determines the sanctions that are imposed on the perpetrators. Second, government bias leads to unclear boundaries, which contribute to violent communal conflicts by creating disarray and by shifting power balances between the communities. Third, regime partiality distances rules from local conditions and restricts the influence of local actors who have an understanding of local circumstances. The study also reveals why a regime acts with partiality in some areas but not in others. The answer to this question is found in the complex interplay between the threats and opportunities that a region presents to the regime. Taken together, the findings have important implications for the prevention and management of communal conflict

Darfur : dimensioner och dilemman i en komplex situation

Utgångspunkten för rapporten är en fältstudie genomförd av författaren i Sudan under november och december 2007 uppdelad på tre veckor i den sudanesiska huvudstaden Khartoum och en vecka i Juba, södra Sudan. Författaren försökte också resa in i Darfur men tyvärr gavs inte de erfor­derliga tillstånden. Trots misslyckandet att komma till Darfur så intervjua­des en stor mångfald av darfurier och människor som arbetar med Darfur-frågan. Under tiden i Sudan intervjuades ett urval av politiker, akademiker, traditionella ledare, rebelledare från varierande fraktioner, studerande, företrädare för frivilligorganisationer, människor som arbetar för olika FN-organ, människor som arbetar för mänskliga rättigheter etc. Detta urval innefattar avsiktligt både partiska och opartiska källor för att uppnå en så bred syn som möjligt. En intention med denna rapport är att använda detta unika material i så stor utsträckning som möjligt, men det är också kom­pletterat med andrahandskällor. Syftet med denna analys är att fördjupa kunskapen om den aktuella krisen i Darfur genom att närma sig på bred front. Studien börjar med en bakgrund till krisen i Sudan och uppmanar till en mångsidig syn på landet. Efter det kort information om några väsent­liga aspekter av krisen i Darfur följd av avsnitt om fredsbevarande styrkor, förhandlingar och den internationella respons konflikten har gett upphov till. Slutligen dras några slutsatser och vägar för framtida forskning före­slås. Man hävdar att den aktuella situationen i Darfur är ett resultat av fyra parallella och sammanlänkade typer av konflikter: kollektiva konflikter, konflikter mellan olika regionala eliter, konflikter mellan periferi och cen­trum samt ett proxy-krig mellan Sudan och Tchad. Det hävdas också att ett mångsidigt närmande till Sudan behövs för att finna en varaktig lösning i Darfur och andra områden i Sudan. Vidare betonar rapporten de oerhört stora problem som både förhandlingarna och den fredsbevarande verk­samheten står inför för närvarande. Slutligen framförs en uppmaning till starkare engagemang från, och samordning av, det internationella samfun­det för att lösa konflikterna i Darfur

Darfur : Dimensions and Dilemmas of a Complex Situation

The point of departure for this report is a field study conducted by the author in Sudan during the fall of 2007. The purpose of this analysis is to deepen knowledge about the current crisis in Darfur through a broad approach. The study includes a short background to the crisis in Darfur and examines some of the major actors, the situation on the ground, the peacekeeping process, the negotiations and the international response. It is argued that the current situation in Darfur is a result of three parallel and interlinked types of conflicts: communal conflicts, conflicts between different regional elites, and periphery-centre conflicts. It is also argued that a comprehensive approach to Sudan is needed to find a lasting solution in Darfur and other areas of Sudan. Moreover, the report stresses the vast problems that both the negotiations and the peacekeeping operation face at the moment. Finally, a call is made for a stronger commitment from, and co-ordination by, the international community to solve the conflicts in Darfur.UCDP- Uppsala Conflict Data Projec

The Crises Continue : Sudan’s Remaining Conflicts

The current conflicts in Sudan consist of different conflict-types, here presented in a theoretical framework of conflict complementarities. The framework consist of four parallel and interlinked conflicts types: communal conflicts, local elite conflicts, center-periphery conflicts, and cross-border conflicts. The structure of conflict complementarities is used to describe the continuing crisis in Darfur, and the emerging crisis in South Kordofan. The complexities of Sudan’s conflict have often been overlooked by outsiders leading to incorrect assessments of the root causes, as well as dynamics of these conflicts. Therefore, this paper makes a call for careful conflict analysis in order to understand the conflicts in Sudan. Although taken place in different areas the root causes of Sudan’s conflicts are similar. Poverty and severe marginalization of the peripheries, in combination with bad governance at the center, are the main reasons for conflicts all over the country. Also other areas of Sudan, such as Eastern Sudan and the far North, suffer from these problems. Thus, there is a risk that Sudan’s crisis will spread to new areas. For conflicts in Sudan to decline the root causes of the problems need to be tackled. Decentralization that would decrease the huge differences between the center and the marginalized peripheries would be a step in the right direction. Also, the government’s propensity for using militias and divide-and-rule strategies has to stop for a brighter future for Sudan. Finally, a stronger commitment from, and co-ordination by, the international community is needed to deal with the continuing crisis in Sudan

Good Understanding enables good solutions

“I have heard that before – I think that you should solve the problem in this manner” is a common comment from a partner, student or friend when someone has started to explain a problem. Sometimes the listener understands the situation and is correct in his/her analysis of it. At other times, however, the problem is not at all what the listener thought it was. This often leaves the person telling the story in frustration, and the suggested solution is often mismatched because the real problem has not been understood. The same goes for conflicts – if you do not understand you cannot fix it – but a good understanding enables a good solution

Sharing Power - Enabling Peace? : Evaluating Sudan's Comprehensive Peace Agreement 2005

This study sets out to examine what lessons can be learned from Sudan’s Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) 2005, with particular relevance to power-sharing. The author went to on a field-trip to Khartoum, Juba and Nairobi in July 2009 to complement his previous knowledge the Sudan conflict.   The report draws ten lessons learned, and these are divided into the three aspects of process, provisions and implementation. In terms of the process, the report suggests that negotiators should strive to involve both regional actors and actors from the international community, focus on the functioning of the agreement, and seek to enhance the capacity-building of the parties. In relation to the key provision, power-sharing, the report calls for mediators to be wary of including exit options in power-sharing deals. The effects of exclusion and inclusion of various actors should be scrutinized and it is important that the message of the agreement is conveyed to various constituencies. Also, it is important to bring peace dividends for the people to increase the legitimacy of the agreement. Regarding the implementation phase, three key lessons are learned. First, for a successful implementation it is essential to keep the momentum of the signing. Secondly, the signing of an agreement is the start, not the end, of building a durable peace. Finally, the research findings demonstrate the importance of maintaining the moment ripe for implementation after the agreement is signed. One way of facilitating this is by keeping the same parties involved during the implementation process as during the negotiations.

Good Understanding enables good solutions

“I have heard that before – I think that you should solve the problem in this manner” is a common comment from a partner, student or friend when someone has started to explain a problem. Sometimes the listener understands the situation and is correct in his/her analysis of it. At other times, however, the problem is not at all what the listener thought it was. This often leaves the person telling the story in frustration, and the suggested solution is often mismatched because the real problem has not been understood. The same goes for conflicts – if you do not understand you cannot fix it – but a good understanding enables a good solution