How can a third party understand an armed group well enough to be able to assist constructively in the establishment of a peace process? This Conciliation Resources article aims to provide starting points and helpful signposts that intermediaries can use in this difficult but essential task. Understanding means more than having information about a group. It means developing a deeper knowing of a group and some ability to predict what it does.
In the world of violent conflict, parties in dispute do not usually have a shared system for resolving their dispute and consequently there is generally an accepted need for what is referred to as a ‘peace process’. Authority and legitimacy are contested, and no judge, court, tribunal, or bargaining process is acceptable to all sides. Hence there is often an assumed need for a ‘third party’, an individual or organisation outside of the combatant groups, to assist in the establishment and management of the process.
The question of understanding armed groups involved two kinds of variables; substantive (the information required) and procedural (the process of interaction with groups in order to gather the information). Intermediaries need to be aware that:
- Their task of understanding an armed group is affected by trust. If there is a high degree of trust between an intermediary and an armed group, the amount, quality and honesty of the information exchanged is much greater.
- Their task is also affected by how they interact with an armed group. Once engaged with the combatants, the intermediary becomes an actor in that conflict system and has an impact (consciously or not) on the conflict dynamics.
- In gathering information, they need to pay attention to more than the spoken or written positions of the parties. They must also be adept at reading actions and the context within which armed groups operate. What the group does and says about itself begins to describe and locate at least its aspirations or what it believes suits its interests.
- As with building trust, the understanding of whether a group is serious about negotiating may need to develop over time, based on actions rather than words. In general, what a group does is the best predictor of what it will do.
Without understanding of an armed group it is difficult to identify common interests, build confidence, or resolve differences. These are all vital steps in reaching an agreement capable of ending violence and addressing the causes of conflict.
- Much of an intermediary’s success comes down to interpersonal and contextual factors, which will be different in each conflict setting and even each interaction.
- Above all, it is crucial to remember that armed groups are dynamic organisations whose strategies change in response to evolving circumstances. Different elements in the group will enjoy prominence at different historical moments, in response to internal tensions or external influences.
- Intermediaries need to remember that their assessment of a group and its attitude to political engagement is not definitive; at a different moment, possibly with a different interlocutor, an intermediary with a different approach may find openings that were previously undiscovered.
- Despite attempts to define or systematise the task of understanding armed groups, it is still a healthy mix of art and science.
