NOTE: This guest post was written by Morgan McMichen. Morgan is a graduate student at the Seton Hall School of Diplomacy and International Relations. Her specializations are in International Organizations and Global Negotiations and Conflict Management. Morgan’s interests are the function of international institutions in a global society and negotiation as a means of deterring conflict among multinational actors.
UN Preventative Diplomacy in Action: Two Cases from Africa
Just over a week ago, former senior United Nations official and Sergio Vieira de Mello Endowed Visiting Chair, João Honwana gave Seton Hall diplomacy students and staff a presentation on preventative diplomacy using two of his own personal experiences. Mr. Honwana has over 20 years of experience in conflict analysis, preventive diplomacy, and mediation, and has served in a variety of positions at the U.N. From 2004 to 2006, he was the Representative of the Secretary-General and Head of the U.N. Peacebuilding Support Office for Guinea-Bissau, then later worked as the Director of the Africa I and Africa II Divisions of the Department of Political Affairs between 2007 and 2016. Mr. Honwana’s experience in the critical field of preventive diplomacy ranges from mediation procedures to the facilitation of stakeholder discussions, illustrating his capacity to moderate differences among parties and channel their energy toward positive outcomes. He also possesses working knowledge of consulting with multilateral institutions and organizations such as the African Union, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and more.
Mr. Honwana’s visit left a lasting impact on diplomacy students eager to leave the world better than they found it. In a world where escalated conflicts and violence are practically in our daily newsfeed, understanding and being able to exercise preventative diplomacy will save time, money, and most importantly, lives. The two accounts of successful preventative diplomacy Mr. Honwana shared demonstrate the possibilities of simply talking things through. Is the process simple? Certainly not…but it can work. Unfortunately, it often gets overlooked as simplistic and utopian. Or…not considered as an option at all. Mr. Honwana crushed this assumption when he described the 2011 Malawi intervention and the 2015 Nigerian election intervention. Both of which were cases set to result in a tragic atrocity.
2011 Malawi-
What began as a peaceful demonstration against the Malawi government for showing tribalism by giving top positions only to members of certain tribes quickly escalated to live bullets being shot into an unarmed crowd. Live bullets go from a last resort to an only resort when there is no access to alternative options such as tear gas or water cannons. Nonetheless, several lives were lost and the protest quickly shifted to a high scale conflict. Mr. Honwana was called upon to address all sides of the conflict just three days before a second demonstration was set to take place-one that was projected to end even more violently. Of course, Mr. Honwana was aware of the issue and had followed it, but, as he said, there is a big difference between following an issue from a foreign land and actually being on the ground to hear and feel the sentiments of the different parties involved. In just three days, and in a backdrop of fierce hostility, he was able to meet with the various groups, identify the crux of each side’s position, use all parties “common denominators” to diffuse tensions, and persuade them to come to the negotiation table. The common denominators that he found were 1. Everyone was in shock 2. Everyone was deeply religious and 3. No one was able to imagine a different solution than taking to the streets. Mr. Honwana was able to use each side’s ties to religion as well as their want for peace to leverage the optimal outcome by persuading the different sides to consider an option that no one had yet considered…talking. The result was postponing vigil for those who were killed for a month to allow time for the government to negotiate peace with the people. The president, though at first very arrogant, did not want to come off as such to the international community, especially the United Nations. Because of that, his constituents persuaded him to give peace a chance.
2015 Nigerian election-
The 2015 elections in Nigeria were held at a backdrop of security challenges from Boko Haram. Before the elections even happened, the public knew that the outcome could lead to a blood bath. As Nigeria is predominately Christian and Muslim, the government ingeniously alternates representatives from the different dominant religions in order to ensure fairness. But this particular election had many issues, not only with the alternation process, as the Christian candidate sought a second term, but also with technical issues with the voting process. Each side was ready to take to the streets. In this case, Mr. Honwana was able to advise the UN Special Representative for West Africa, Mr. Chambas, who was in the region working with local leaders, local institutions, and citizens. Mr. Chambas was able to use common denominators including religion to get to the crux of the issues and negotiate peace. Before the Muslim candidate had secured the majority of the votes, the president peacefully conceded and the Muslim candidate took office without the projected violence.
What can we take from this?
In solving conflicts, everyone first needs a chance to “vent” so to speak. If any group is suppressed in having their voice heard, the outcome is sure to be unsustainable and those “bottled up” feelings can come later out in an even harsher way. What we can take from these examples is the need from an outside, impartial source to create a platform for discussion. This person or more likely, team of people, must have a special skill in earning the trust of the different sides and identifying the common denominators between them. They must be able to choose their words wisely, tread lightly with their actions, and to listen and encourage discussion between members of the same group before ever bringing the groups together.
It’s easy to see that preventative diplomacy does not come easy. It cannot be accomplished by one person or one party alone and many factors must be favorable. The goal is to leverage the present factors to guide the parties toward realization that peace is the best answer to their issues. Mr. Honwana is the first to admit “We are not miracle workers. There are no miracles in this business. All parties must want peace. They may not know how to express it, but you have to help them find it.”
Though time consuming and sometimes even expensive, preventative diplomacy is worth every bit of it all. It is the most peaceful and sustainable approach. His two examples from Africa can be used as templates that can be customized and molded to fit different contexts and values. It would be nice to see such a platform and intervention for issues happening in the United States. One set of pressing issues in need to dire attention are those dealing with race relations in the United States. It seems the issues centered around the alt+right, removal of confederate statues, the Black Lives Matter movement, etc. could use this type of intervention. People are divided into factions where everyone is on the defense, no one is listening to the other and the majority only seek to promote their own personal agenda or what they believe is “right”. They assume they know not only the argument of the other side but also the solution to the other’s problem without ever sitting down with the other parties and trying to understand. Division, violence, and hatred has no place in the United States…or anywhere for that matter. Preventative diplomacy can work in any region of the world to deal with any conflict if and only if each party wishes to reconcile and wants peace above all else. The key is to understand all sides from the ground so that a feasible plan can be customized to serve the individual context and its baggage effectively and sustainably. Guidance toward a solution from a third party who has created a space for discussion could end up bringing more success that anyone would imagine. Mr. Honwana left us with an important message about preventative diplomacy. He said, “If you are lucky, you’ll be part of the solution. If you aren’t careful, you will contribute to the problem.”