By Dr. Erika Laubacher-Kubat*
In this century alone 160 million people have been killed through wars, genocide and torture; since 1945 almost 200 wars have been fought. Laws on non-intervention, the blocking veto in the UN security council, and the immunity of government leaders have, in almost all cases, protected the perpetrators rather than the victims. The majority of today’s wars are intra-state conflicts between rivaling political groups within a state or conflicts arising between groups and the respective state. Key to identifying the conflict groups is the politicization of ethnic traits via their political leaders. Almost two-thirds of all wars have ethnopolitical roots and occur much more often than wars of an anti-regime nature or between countries. While inter-state wars tend to result in the strengthening of state power, intra-state wars often lead to the collapse of law and order and to the breakdown of military forces into armed gangs. Ethno-political wars are much more gruesome and intentionally target the civilian population, leaving deep wounds in families and neighboring communities. The international conflict management, as seen in organizations such as the UN or the OSCE, was not prepared for this reality. This led to failures in the Balkans as well as in Central and East Africa.
Creating enforceable international laws
One reason for these failures is that such conflict resolving institutions lack the legal backing and international support to enforce these laws. How can the laws of non-intervention in inner-state affairs be suspended in a situation which genuinely calls for an intervention? Under which circumstances can an intervention be considered legitimate? As a consequence of this reality, conflicts are dealt with in ways which may seem almost contradictory to the “good intentions” of the objectives they set out to accomplish. Expensive missions are deployed in order to defend more lucrative interests while wars in Africa receive relatively little attention from the international community. If the international conflict management wants to regain part of its credibility then the member states have to reassess their seemingly old-fashioned understanding of sovereignty and, in addition, draft new rules for the compliance of human rights which should not be simply rejected as an interference into interstate affairs. In the case of the military intervention in Kosovo there was enough evidence of approval among relevant states which seemed to legitimize this act. However, such an operation without any legal grounds nor the consent of the UN security council can not be a model for the future.
A comprehensive approach to conflict management is necessary In an interview in the German news magazine Spiegel (26/1993) the former special representative to Somalia critically mentioned that the UN intervention in Somalia involved too much dialogue with the military leaders of the country. The result was the neglecting of the traditional civilian approaches of reconciliation and peace-building among Somalian society. The mission should have involved groups such as merchants, academics and women’s organizations into the discussions to strengthen the peace-building efforts within Somalian society. Fi-nally the UN had not approached Somalia’s “Committee of Elders”, the traditional mediators in feuds between clans. The failures of the UN in Somalia show how important it is to incorporate the civilian potential of peaceful conflict handling in relevant societies and to use the knowledge of these insiders. In many cases, a long conflict or war has destroyed the native structures of peaceful conflict management which means that the structures and mechanisms must be revitalized by internal and external mediators. Since independence the ruling party in Burundi has bolstered the power of Bashingantahe (“Committee of Elders”) in the village for the settlement of conflicts. In Africa the revival of the traditional “chatting method” – a form of social communication for the settlement of conflicts in cases of murder, inheritance disputes, divorces and the distribution of land – could possibly have a positive effect on the dramatic situation in Zaire, Rwanda and Burundi. The African “chatting method” aims at reducing the distorted views of the conflict parties, tries to overcome contact barriers between conflicting parties, and involves elements of psychological dimensions. With respect to the elements of traditional cultures, which are relevant for the management of ethnopolitical conflicts, decisions have to be taken on a case to case basis. As far as conflicts in the Balkans and in the former USSR are concerned this form of mediation represents the readiness and openness to incorporate regional civilian elements of conflict management. It also offers assistance in the continuation of the relevant societies’ efforts to work out conflicts in their own way rather than to rely exclusively on an “imported product”. Even if a third party comes into the conflict as an “outsider”, they can still seek to establish contacts with the native surroundings of the conflicts. They can meet with religious leaders, journalists, teachers, NGO activists, etc. in order to discuss measures which could prevent further conflict from escalating. In addition, they can nurture their social networks in order to find common solutions for the long-term resolution of the conflict.
Structural measures
For the resolution of ethnopolitical conflicts it is vital to strive for long-term solutions; this can only be achieved through structural changes within the relevant states. Short-term mediations or conferences (e.g. Rambouillet) can be useful but tend only to reach the cease-fire-agreement stage. Long-term solutions of conflicts and the resulting thorough adjustments within a state are necessary to ultimately improve the relationship between the conflicting parties. In the context of such structural measures the establishment and extension of federal and autonomous arrangements play a very important role. These efforts aim at the alteration of the structures of the whole state and create an opportunity for self-determination within a state without encouraging the breakdown of the infrastucture of a country or a region. Although there already exist a few functional examples the scope for the implementation of various autonomous arrangements has not been exhausted. In general states do not accept such autonomous arrangements or federalist concepts easily because they view them as a threat to their power and as a first step to secession. This argument can be contradicted by showing that the risk of secession shrinks when the equal distribution of resources and goods within different groups in a state are guaranteed. Only after the granting of these rights can the fulfillment of duties be expected.
First steps towards a global democracy
Now that we are at the end of this century we can see that the world is still quite far away from developing a global government. However, there is an increasing number of indicators that we are indeed showing a tendency towards such a concept. In 1994 the UN installed the Rwanda Tribunal and in 1996 the former Yugoslavia Tribunal; also in 1996 Chile’s former dictator Pinochet was arrested; and in 1999 NATO intervened in Kosovo. Though these actions are still controversial, they demonstrate something quite unexpected in world politics: The discovery of a common responsibility towards fulfilling a moral obligation. These actions lack common legal ground and regularity but, perhaps, the international community (and, therefore, the inter-national conflict management) will seize the moment and make the power of human rights their focus.
* Erika Laubacher-Kubat was born in Biel (Switzerland) in 1968. After finishing her studies in German Literature and Cultural Anthropology at the universities of Berne and Vienna, she worked as a translator, teacher and journalist in London and Kuwait City. This year in June she completed her doctorate thesis on “Possibilities on conflict prevention in ethnopolitical conflicts” at the university of Berne. Erika Laubacher lives with her family in Vienna and works as a freelance journalist. Email: 102011.1761@compuserve.com. Tel.: 0043 1 333 05 07
