Sabine Wagner, INEF Duisburg / IFSH Hamburg

Actors on the Peace-Building Stage
• Peacebuilding involves a wide range of actors • Approaches to Peace-Building make a distinction

between actors on the state level („Track One“) and actors on the civil society level („Track Two“)

Track One and Two Track One • Governments • International and Track Two • International and local regional Organisations (EU. AU) NGOs • Research institutes • Churches • Individuals . UNO.

Track One Diplomacy Mediation • Mediation by states is practised in the form of official or quiet diplomacy • The usual types of mediation (umbrella term) are good offices. consultation. negotiation and mediation . facilitation.

often through shuttle diplomacy • Consultations: mediators act as advisors to the conflicting parties • Mediation: characterised by a higher degree of interference than other mediation types.g. facilitators try to create space for the conflicting parties to come together. mediators articulate their opinion and usually try to develop a peace plan .Types of Track One Mediation • Good Offices: low-intervention mediation efforts (e. Facilitators talk to the parties separately. logistical support for peace talks) • Facilitation: prior or parallel to negotiations.

explicit possibility of use of power.Power Mediation as a Special Form of Mediation • Outcome-orientation: the aim of mediation is to identify representative leaders of the conflicting parties and to bring them together to negotiate a cease fire and/or a peace accord • Power Mediation: outcome-oriented. This approach can be practised by states which are able to bring resources into the negotiations („financial carrots“ or „military sticks“) . including military force.

. and Liberia.. A Field Guide. Somalia. 147) .. Boulder 2001. S..).] the international community most often seeks out and relates to hierarchical leaders [.Criticisms on Track One Diplomacy • State diplomacy focuses on the top leadership level of conflicting parties: „[. Levels of Leadership.“ (Jean Paul Lederach. as it is often the case. In situations such as Bosnia.] even when. the degree to which hierarchical power is operational is decidedly unclear. power may be far more diffuse and fractionated. Peacebuilding. in: Luc Reychler/Thania Paffenholz (Hrsg.

..And more criticism. • State mediation are only in rare cases „neutral“ • Outcome-oriented approaches are not sufficient in tackling deeper roots of conflict .

top level) .Track Two Diplomacy / Civil Society PeaceBuilding • Rather a complementary concept than an alternative to Track One • Process-oriented rather than outcome-oriented • Tackles the relationships af actors on all society levels (grass-roots level. middle-range level.

„Chattamham Rules“ • In a three-stage process.Example of Track Two Instruments: „Interactive Problem-Solving Workshops“ • Influential persons of conflicting parties are brought together in a neutral. informell setting. accompagnied by practicioners and scientists. proposals are worked out for a solution which satisfies the security and identity needs of all parties .

Limits to the Problem-Solving Workshop • Recruitment: it is difficult to find participants who are motivated to actively get involved in the peace process and who are at the same time in a position that enables them to feed the workshop results into the political process • Asymmetry: workshop has limited output when the constellation of conflicting parties is characterised by an asymmetric power structure .

Agenda for Peace 1992) .Multi-Track Diplomacy: the natural answer to the „multi-cause“ of conflict? „Peace in the largest sense cannot be accomplished by the United Nations or the Governments alone.“ (Boutros-Ghali. the media and the public at large must all be involved. academic institutions. business and professional communities. Nongovernmental Organizations. parliamentarians.

pointing out the media as an interconnecting communication channel .Multi-Track Diplomacy • There are a number of approaches to integrate Track One and Track Two Diplomacy into a complementary concept • McDonald names 9 different actor groups.

West Hardford 1996) .Multi-Track Diplomacy (Source: Louise Diamond/John McDonald. A Systems Approach to Peace (3rd edition). Multi-Track Diplomacy.

g. International Crisis Group) .Excursion: NGOs as Track Two Players – Strenghts and Weaknesses Strenghts: • • • • • • • • • Independent. middlerange level and top level use an array of innovative and flexible methods (e.g. „Studio Ijambo“ in Burundi) can create space for „peace constituencies“ „eyes and ears“ to international community: early presence in conflict zones develop expertise. provide political actors with analyses and recommendations (e. credible accepted by conflicting parties can provide an informal. „Search for Common Ground“: TV-series „Nashe Maalo“ in Macedonia. unofficial setting to conflicting parties less media attention. creates space for shuttle diplomacy have access to actors on all levels of society: grassroots level.

psychological pressure) • Staff sometimes does not meet required professional skills and qualifications (Conflict analysis.]: To whom are NGOs accountable?“ (Pamela Aall. low „political weight“ (but: cedibility) • Discontinuity (high fluctuation of staff due to difficult living conditions.. mediation techniques. This raises a crucial question [. weak state structures lose credibility • „In many ways NGO activity can be seen as replacing the state.1996) • Legitimacy? (external and internal legitimacy) • Dominance of „western“ actors and peacebuilding concepts .Weaknesses: • Low financial capacities. social and intercultural competence) • NGOs sometimes replace the state..

„I found that in Egypt.. http://www. Finding the Tools to Bridge the Cultural Gaps.“ (Amr K. which I later read in an article as well. Abdullah.] The Westerners felt that they were trying to do something good and refused to believe that their work was under suspicion. Rwanda and Burundi people were not too excited about the role of NGOs in their country.. Those who worked with the NGOs enjoyed having a „good job“.14. Okt. 2001) one person called it the „new colonization. [....more weaknesses. while the population itself was not as attached to the cause or the service that was being provided as it was to the money and surroundings that came with it.. In Rwanda. while the local population had a different attitude.

and sometimes • • • • • • • • • • represent elite interests only NGOs sometimes replace local peace initiatives instead of supporting them NGOs sometimes do not analyse conflict situations properly before they get involved Sometimes NGOs do not show long-term commitment („jumpers“. „hit and run“ approach)  „do no harm“  „Peace and Conflict Impact Assessment“ NGOs sometimes ignore the fact.and more weaknesses • NGOs do not choose their local partners careful enough („let‘s cooperate“) • NGOs sometimes have only weak if any ties with civil society... is surprisingly underdeveloped. that there is always a number of people who profit from war Harsh competition for funds Labor division among NGOs as well as between NGOs. states and multilateral agencies. lack of cooperation NGOs tend not to evaluate their programs on a regular base  networks ..

sfcg. Theatre and Outreach Projects .org) • Bridges for the New Balkans: Regional Media Project • Mozaik: Model for Multicultural Pre-school Education in Macedonia • Nashe Maalo: Television.NGO activities: „Search for Common Ground“ in Macedonia (source and further information: www.

Albania. approximately 500 journalists.Bridges for the New Balkans: Regional Media Project • Bridges for the New Balkans was the first regional media project in • • • • the Balkans Project has been successfully implemented in Macedonia. intellectuals and other professionals from different countries in the region have been involved in the project . Kosovo. Bulgaria. Montenegro and Serbia Main goal of the project is improved communication among different ethnic communities and nations in the Balkans Using media as a tool. the project attempts to overcome prejudices among the Balkan nations Since the beginning of the project.

Regional Magazine • Multiethnic Forum.Project Components • Karavan. local (Macedonian) Magazine • Balkan Kaleidoscope • Local TV Exchange • Local Radio Exchange .

Mozaik: Model for Multicultural Pre-school Education in Macedonia • Mozaik was initiated in 1998 to support Macedonian educational institutions in bridging the gap caused by linguistic. Gostivar. Kumanovo. Struga and Debar • SCGM‘s objective for 2004-2006 is that Mozaik is integrated formally into the Macedonian public education system . cultural and ethnic segregation in schools and kindergartens • Project has two main components: introducing a bilingual approach in kindergartens and developing a child-centered pedagogical approach that includes age-appropriate training in conflict-resolution skills for children • Since 1998 Mozaik has been successfully implemented in Skopje.

Nashe Maalo: Television. Theatre and Outreach Projects • Nashe Maalo was the first children‘s television program in Macedonia • goals: promote intercultural understanding. encourage conflict prevention in a multicultural society and impart specific conflict-resolution skills that children can use in their everyday lives .

Nashe Maalo • Children‘s Puppet Theatre • Nashe Maalo Outreach • Children‘s Magazine • Parent-Teacher Guide • Nashe Maalo Music CD • Knowledge Quiz Show • Nashe Maalo Live Theatre .

Thank you for your attention! Questions/Discussion: • What are your experiences with NGOs or other „Track Two“ Actors? • What do you think of the „Search for Common Ground“ approach in Macedonia? .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful