Should Armed Non-State Actors be engaged in development dialogue? Would this be tantamount to negotiating with terrorists? Armed Non-State Actors are now an important feature of violent conflict within and between states. This paper from the German Development Institute (DIE) identifies opportunities and challenges for engaging Armed Non-State Actors from a development perspective. It refutes the idea that this engagement legitimises violence and suggests there is widespread support for such work.
Humanitarian organisations have for some time developed strategies to engage armed groups in relation to respect for humanitarian principles. Relatively little attention has been paid to their engagement from a development perspective. Such an undertaking faces numerous problems and threats, especially given the current focus on terrorism. While some argue that it is just a politically correct term for terrorists, the term ‘Armed Non-State Actors’ encompasses a variety of groups, including insurgents, rebel groups, guerrillas, freedom fighters, separatists, national liberation movements and de facto governing authorities.
There is a close relationship between Armed Non-State Actors, terrorism, conflict and development:
- 229 armed conflicts in 148 countries have been recorded since World War II. In places such as Sub-Saharan Africa, violence is not a momentary phenomenon but pervades all aspects of life. The economic and social costs are thus significant.
- Violent internal conflict poses a major challenge to development. The use of Small Arms and Light Weapons by Armed Non-State Actors seriously undermines the development process. There is increasing recognition that development aid should involve efforts to prevent, manage or resolve conflict.
- The vagueness and emotionally loading of the term ‘terrorism’ allows its application in any way the user sees fit. The anti-terrorism agenda consolidates state power and stifles opposition.
- Labelling individuals as ‘terrorists’ deflects attention from the origins of their grievances and possible legitimacy of their demands. It dismisses any calls to negotiate with them and paves the way for the use of violence.
- Often, the only difference between state and non-state groups is international recognition. Many members of non-state armed actors end up being involved in ‘legitimate’ politics.
The following recommendations are made for donors and development agencies:
- It is important to understand how conditions in “underdeveloped” parts of the world affect the international security environment. Exclusion, despair and alienation lead disaffected individuals and groups to resort to arms.
- We need to engage with Armed Non-State Actors. Where they control territory, their agreement is needed to conduct economic or humanitarian activities. The importance of engaging Armed Non-State Actors as a confidence-building measure cannot be underestimated.
- Openness and transparency are crucial in preventing allegations of collusion with “terrorists”. Organisations such as Geneva Call and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) have overcome many of the obstacles involved.
- Decisions to engage with Armed Non-State Actors should be context and purpose based. Five factors are relevant: Has engagement worked in the past? Is it legal? Is it worthwhile? How can it be done? Who should engage?
