Despite the fact that negotiating security issues is a political endeavour, security concerns must be given high priority in peace processes. This Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue paper presents a collection of voices and experiences on security issues in recent peace processes in Colombia, Uganda-Sudan and Azerbaijan-Armenia. Rather than limiting their role to post-agreement implementation, development agencies should facilitate more appreciation of security arrangements and options for parties to peace processes.
Representatives of warring parties and those facilitating dialogue among them face multiple pressures on which substantive agreement must be reached. Issues critical to peace processes include transformation of security and justice systems and establishing control of vast quantities of weapons. They also include addressing the needs of those traumatised and disabled by armed violence and disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) of fighting forces.
This paper presents direct experiences in peace processes from the perspectives of a mediator, a DDR advisor and a representative of a warring party. Conflicts and peace processes covered occurred in Azerbaijan and Armenia (Nagorno-Karabakh), northern Uganda (the Juba process) and Colombia.
One of the greatest mediation challenges is to manage the “peace space”, particularly when warring parties seek to use violence to undermine peace efforts. Additional observations about challenges of addressing armed violence in peace processes are:
- In the case of Azerbaijan/Armenia, mediators used intelligence, surveillance, engagement and control to protect peace negotiations from the threat of violence.
- The Colombian guerrilla movement M-19 first used peace as a battle flag and a call for “democracy in arms”. Its subsequent development of an authentic peace strategy allowed it to join DDR and disarm.
- M-19’s disarmament and transition to civilian life risked its losing an identity forged on the use of arms. Group members came to realise that “peace needed to become a one-way journey.”
- The Juba peace process exhibited gaps between the rhetoric, process and practice of addressing security issues. When security arrangements are highly contested, the space to apply good security practices can be exceedingly narrow.
- All three Juba process peacekeeping operations had a mutual problem with the rebel army. However, there was little coordination of intelligence sharing and strategising how to deal with the threat of a return to violence.
The following are points to consider in future discussions of security in peace processes:
- Mediators need to gauge the risk violence may pose to a peace process and engage appropriately.
- Outsiders can help support mediation efforts, as they may have greater freedom to manoeuvre.
- True security requires the decision to reject war and commit to peace. One cannot have a foot in both camps.
- DDR is linked to and determined by security arrangements established during peace talks.
- Development agencies need to facilitate appreciation by conflict parties of security arrangements and options for parties to peace processes.
