EARLY WARNING

Mamkpa and Mbakwe (2015) noted that humans have always craved to have prior
information about impending dangers in order to either prevent if possible or
prepare for them. Early warning is invaluable when it is followed with appropriate
response. The United Nations has a Human Early Warning Systems that it had
used to forewarn of diseases and natural disasters like tsunamis, famine, hurricane
floods drought etc.

Early warning is a very important violent conflict preventive mechanism. It is

intended to give first-hand information of the likelihood of a conflict and most
importantly a violent one. It does not actual prevent conflict from occurring as
conflict is inevitable but it prevents it from escalating. In fact Apkpuru-Aja (2007)
submits that no conflict springs up by surprise. Hence every conflict has early
indicator(s) Nwanasali (2006) defines early warning as a set of activities that aims
to collect, collate and analyze data in order to detect and identify the signs of an
emerging crisis before it escalates to violence. Early warning is not limited to
getting information but this information (data) only becomes useful when it is
analyzed and disseminated to stakeholders for appropriate and timely response.
Haider succinctly opines that indicators of escalations of conflict must be
monitored and appropriate measures must be taken to respond to them (Haider
2014). Violence can be avoided when there is a viable early warning system. Early
warning must be accompanied with early response. Early response is any initiative
or strategy that is employed as soon as a violent conflict is detected. These will
considerably reduce the emergence or the escalation of an already existing conflict.
Early warning can be helpful in post conflict societies to prevent the reemergence
of violence . E.g the Rwanda. Genocide

Some early warning indicators as stated by Nwanasali include

Level of popular participation in and exclusion from decision making processes .,

elections, issues related to identity and citizenship, inflation, high cost of living,
unemployment, scarcity, food security, proliferation of small arms and light
weapons , law and order, proliferation of paramilitary force, population density,
natural catastrophes, water security. Shodipo, (2014) noted that there has been
development in EWER in Nigeria despite numerous challenges- Civil society

1
organisations like the West Africa Network for Peacebuilding (WANEP) which
established Nigeria Civil Society early warning-response mechanism, Search for
Common Ground (SFCG) SFCG runs a participatory EWER system in Plateau
State, Inter Faith Mediation Center (IMC) is also involved in sensitisation,
capacity building, design, and implementation and reporting of EWER
programmes in Nigeria. There is also Foundation for Partnership Initiatives in the
Niger Delta (PIND)

Early warning and the Rwanda experience as reported by A. Walter Dorn

To help implement the 1993 Arusha peace accords for Rwanda, the Security
Council established the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda
(UNAMIR). There were many indicators of an oncoming genocide available to the
peacekeeping operations in 1993/94. The most stark information was provided by
an informant who was responsible for training the militia in Kigali. Three months
before the genocide began on April 6, 1994, he told Force Commander Roméo
Dallaire that the militia were being trained to kill 1,000 people in 20 minutes and
that he had been asked to compile a list of Tutsis in Kigali that he thought was "for
their extermination." He showed a UNAMIR officer some weapons caches that
were being kept ready for the massacres. He also said that Belgian troops in the
mission would be targeted deliberately to "guarantee Belgian withdrawal." Dallaire
passed this information on to UN headquarters in his fax of January 11, 1994. He
also requested permission to raid the arms caches and to find asylum for the
informant. But his request was turned down. Furthermore, UN headquarters did not
share this fax with members of the Security Council. Thus, the field commander
had issued an important early warning but UN headquarters failed to make its own
appeal for assistance. Dallaire's ominous warning was borne out with uncanny
accuracy in the genocide of April-July 1994, where some 800,000 Rwandese were
killed. At the start, a group of Belgian peacekeepers were murdered and the
Belgian government withdrew its peacekeepers, just as the genocidists had sought.

There were other significant early warning signs in Rwanda. The radio station
Radio Mille Collines, owned and operated by persons high in the government, was

2
spouting hate propaganda to demonize the Tutsi minority. Government ministers
advanced a campaign of propaganda and urged mass killings. Weapons were
imported, including automatic rifles and vast quantities of machetes that could not
be justified for farming purposes. There was a long and bloody history of
massacres and other serious human rights violations. Furthermore, a year earlier
UN human rights investigators reported rumours of a network of senior officials
devoted to killing Tutsis. The combination and collaboration of such information
could have provided UN headquarters with the most tell-tale signs of impending
doom.

CONFLICT CYCLE

1. Pre-conflict stage/Latent stage: this is a period when the goals of parties are
incompatible. There is some disagreement which could lead to open conflict.
At this stage conflict can quickly be resolved if parties work together to find
a solution that both parties would be happy with. At the latent stage, conflict
is yet to be known to people, the parties can still hide it from public view.
No violence is involved at this stage. No communication breakdown, they
are still working together.

2. Manifest/Emergence: At this stage of conflict, parties feel wronged and take

offence, closeness gives way to aloofness and disinterestedness, conflict
parties also become cold and emotional expressions of warmth and
familiarity are gradually replaced by indifferences, they ignore other
person’s point of view or goal.

3. Escalation Stage: The conflict parties express stern hostilities. Conflict is so

open. There are signals of impending crisis. There is occasional fighting,
low level of violence because parties now see each other as enemies. There
is search for allies by parties, mobilization of resources, strained
relationships, and polarization. Conflict parties may resort to name calling,
making snide remarks about the other’s work or appearances

3
 4. Crisis Stage/Stalemate/deadlock: This is the peak of the conflict; things have
become so bad that they become intimidating, threatening with aggressive
reactions. In violent conflict, this stage is war and intense fighting leading to
killings, injuries, facilities in the environment are destroyed. The destruction
at this stage can be very serious and massive. The conflict may be
protracted.

5. Outcome/De-escalation: The assumption is that all conflict will pass through

this stage. Violence has considerably decreased and this would allow/give
room for some discussion. Sometimes when conflict reaches a stage where
both parties are unhappy with the state of things – for instance many losses,
resources with no achievable result, the conflict parties may agree to cease
fire agreement. Sometimes parties may also relax and re-group. The conflict
parties may also realize that ending the conflict is a problem they must face
and solve.

6. Resolution/settlement: At this stage the conflict parties are now willing to

resolve issues that led to the conflict. The parties collaborate to establish
peace at least for the time being in order to reach a settlement there is need
for compromise often with bitter arguments over what the compromise will
be. Underlying causes which started the conflict are adequately addressed to
avoid future occurrence. Complete resolution is difficult after great hostility.

7. Collaborative action/working together/conflict transformation post conflict

peace building stage: parties must agree and put peace agreement into effect
serious task of rebuilding the society has to commence- rebuilding homes,
restoring jobs, de-mining, disarming, demobilization, reintegration

Conflict transformation: goes beyond containing and management of conflict or

bringing about win-win solution. It was introduced by John Paul Lederach, and is
more comprehensively used to refer to all actions taken to resolve and also
transform destructive conflict to a constructive one, removes all root causes of
conflict, issues leading to negative attitudes. (inherent socio-economic and political
factors that sustain conflict are removed. These factors include poverty,
unemployment, inequality, injustice, political exclusion etc) it aims to transform
relationships.

4
Conflict transformation also includes actions aimed at transforming interest, goals,
positions even constitutions/policies that endanger peace and promote violent.

Oullet, J and Yawanarajah on Peace Agreements

Peace agreements are contracts intended to end a violent conflict, or to

significantly transform a conflict, so that it can be more constructively addressed.
There are various types of agreements that can be reached during a peace process.
Each type of agreement has a distinct purpose and serves a value in itself towards
building positive momentum for a final settlement. These agreements, however,
are not easily distinguished, as the content may sometimes overlap. Not all types of
agreements are needed for each conflict. Some processes may have step-by-step

5
agreements that lead towards a comprehensive settlement. Other peace processes
may seek to negotiate one agreement comprehensively.

While categorizing each document that is negotiated during a peace process is

often difficult, the following are common classifications used by the United
Nations to differentiate the various types of peace agreements

 Cessation of Hostilities or Ceasefire Agreements

A ceasefire agreement refers to a temporary stoppage of war or any armed

conflict for an agreed-upon timeframe or within a limited area. Each party to
the agreement agrees with the other to suspend aggressive actions, without
necessarily making concessions of any kind. These agreements are military
in nature and are basically designed to stop warring parties from continuing
military actions while political negotiations are conducted to find a more
durable solution.

By themselves, ceasefire agreements are typically short-lived and fragile.

They must be quickly followed up with further agreements if the ceasefire is
to be maintained.

 Pre-Negotiation Agreements

Pre-negotiation agreements are those that define how the peace will be
negotiated. These agreements determine procedural issues such as schedules,
agendas, participants and location, as well as the peacemaker's role and the
procedure for drafting later framework or comprehensive agreements. The
management of a peace process often determines if an agreement will be
reached. Pre-negotiation agreements serve to structure negotiations and keep
them on track. They facilitate the management of a peace process in order to
reach its goal of ending the conflict. Pre-negotiation agreements usually
signal the first achievement of success in a peace process, and thereby serve
to build confidence and promote trust between the parties.

 Interim or Preliminary Agreements

Interim or Preliminary agreements are undertaken as an initial step toward

conducting future negotiations. They are usually seen as "agreements to
agree" or commitments to reach a negotiated settlement and build
confidence between the parties. Such agreements do not normally deal with
either procedural or structural issues, but may have some characteristics of a
6
 pre-negotiation agreement, delineating when and how negotiations might be
held. Interim agreements serve to signal that the ceasefire will be respected.
Interim agreements are also used to restart a stalled peace process. Like
ceasefire agreements, interim or preliminary agreements are not stable, and
need to be followed with negotiations on procedural and substantive issues
quickly to keep the new positive momentum of a peace process.

 Comprehensive and Framework Agreements:

The terms "Comprehensive Agreements" and "Framework Agreements" are

often used interchangeably. However, there is a slight difference between
the two types of agreements:

o Framework Agreements are agreements that broadly agree upon the

principles and agenda upon which the substantive issues will be
negotiated. Framework agreements are usually accompanied by
protracted negotiations that result in Annexes that contain the
negotiated details on substantive issues, or are a series of subsequent
agreements that are sometimes collectively known as the
Comprehensive Agreement;
o Comprehensive Agreements address the substance of the underlying
issues of a dispute. Their conclusion is often marked by a handshake,
signifying an "historical moment" that ends a long-standing conflict.
Comprehensive agreements seek to find the common ground between
the interests and needs of the parties to the conflict, and resolve the
substantive issues in dispute.
 Implementation Agreements

Implementation Agreements elaborate on the details of a Comprehensive or

Framework Agreement. An implementation agreement almost always
requires a new round of negotiations with the relevant parties. In these
negotiations, framework or comprehensive agreements are fine-tuned and
given specificity. The goal of implementation agreements is to work out the
details and mechanics to facilitate implementation of the comprehensive
agreement. Implementation agreements are not always formally written
documents. Sometimes they are verbal commitments, exchanges of letters,
and joint public statements that help move implementation forward. Due to
this fact, it is usually very difficult to keep track of implementation
agreements. Often, the informal nature of these agreements makes it more
difficult to hold the parties to their commitments. While formally written

7
implementation agreements often take a longer time to achieve, there is
usually a perception that the parties are committed, serious and obligated to
implement these agreements.