Inclusive versus exclusive mediation strategies in contemporary civil wars

Inclusive v. Exclusive Civil War Mediation Strategies:

What is Inclusive Strategy?

What is Exclusive Strategy?

Civic Society: Including the Voices of the Civilian Public

Benefits of Civil Society

Drawbacks of Civil Society

Civic Society: Excluding the Voices of the Civilian Public

Benefits of Excluding Civil Society

Drawbacks of excluding Civil Society

Elite Driven Peace: What is the purpose?

Governmental Power Sharing

Military power sharing

Stasis in Roman Sicily Case: Example of Exclusive Mediation

Thirty Days War Case: Example of Exclusive Mediation

Bosnia Case: Example of Exclusive Mediation

Libya and Kenya Case: Example of Inclusive Mediation

Colombian case: Example of Inclusive Mediation

Victims

Norway the Mediator

Transitional Justice Framework

Benefits of Victims at Negotiation Table

Drawback at the Negotiating Table in Colombia

Legal Framework for Peace

"Mesa de Conversaciones"

Failed Mediations

Conclusion 22

Bibliography 23

Introduction

Currently, mediations that serve the interest of the individuals are better than those who just assist in the interests of the elites, although the latter may have been more effective in the past. This was because higher power were the ones in control and only handled negotiations among of other elites in power. The common people were less educated and not seen as important, and the settling of civil wars affected the interests of the common people in a lesser degree during the elite era. Because now days, civil wars are looked at as being more deadly and more long-lasting than interstate conflicts, it is argued that inclusive strategies are more appropriate since civil wars effect civilians more than anything. A common strategy in the quest to resolve conflict is the inclusive mediation which involves non-actors and groups from the society. Historically, peace and transition mediations have been exclusive procedures linking military actors and elite state politics. On the other hand ever since the 1990s outreach to and inclusion of non-state armed actors in peace and transition procedures in Civil War situations have become more acknowledged. To account for differences in mediation achievement, scholars for instance Joh (2008) have considered the effects that dissimilar mediation strategies have on mediation results. How do diverse mediators, and their individual mediation flairs, sway the mediation process in civil wars? Even though exclusive, elite-only civil war negotiation strategies have the overall gain in pre-1900 because of their resources, royalism and power that can further mediations, the present conditions of affairs make it difficult for long-term negotiated peace to be attained without engaging the voices of civil society such as war victims and other focus groups made up of civilians. This will help expound how the participation of civil society groups can make the behavior of mediation in civil war and the outcome of an agreement more reasonable for the affected population.

What is Inclusive Strategy?

Inclusive strategy can be defined as a method of negotiation that uses the public or society in a civil war. These are considered to be the more present types of negotiation that involves the power of speech among the civilians in society. As Wanis-St. John (2008, 4) has mentioned, peace discussions must address two differing needs -- they must contain the least number of participants or factions wanted to reach an agreement, and they must obtain the largest possible support from the general public.

What is Exclusive Strategy?

Exclusive strategy involving civilians were largely exiled from the negotiations, which was a problem assuming that a lot of them ended up acting as spoilers to any efforts to reach a negotiated answer. Exclusive strategy can be defined as strategy that involved the monarchy or those that were "cream of the crop" per se. An elite is a small group of individuals who control an unbalanced amount of wealth or political power. Generally, elite means the more powerful group of individuals. An example would be the monarchy or United Nations. All through negotiations of such elite arrangements, those who should debatably be benefiting from peace in the first place, namely citizens, usually do not contribute. It is exactly because such negotiations are inherently elite, and often externally mediated, that it has been argued that civil society groups can become valuable participants in the mediation process.

Civic Society: Including the Voices of the Civilian Public

When it comes to inclusive strategy, engaging the voices of civil society can be very beneficial and has its drawbacks at the same time. Hardly ever do local civil society groups get a seat at the negotiation table for peace accords (A. W.-S. John, 2008, p. 5). As stated above, the involvement of civil society is said to advance the legitimacy of the negotiations and resultant agreements and the chances of maintainable peace.

Benefits of Civil Society

Using the public it much more effective nowadays when it comes to civil war and modern time peacemaking. In the present time, bringing civilians to the negotiating table has been fruitful. Just as international mediators have devoted their attention to Track I actors, knowledge in worldwide arbitration has historically tended to put emphasis on the roles of governing elites and connections among them. In international and internal conflicts, the scope has broadened to be made up of armed non-state actors who use force with the intention of getting a seat at the negotiation table. But then again other kinds of groups likewise make their presence felt in 6 negotiations of all kinds and theory has been catching up with practice (A. W.-S. John, 2008, p. 12).

John goes on to make his point by saying that even though excluding civil society groups may modernize peace negotiations that are already complex enough, the absence of their voices and interests at the negotiating table can prove fatal to the peace agreement all through the post conflict peacebuilding stage. From Arusha to Oslo, the emphasis on elite interests in peace negotiations regularly leaves the general public at large without perceived recompenses in the agreed peacebuilding frameworks, weakening the ability of governments and transitional authorities to come to some kind of a sustainable peace (A. W.-S. John, 2008, p. 13).

Another benefit that John focuses on is that civil society groups can help bring better public representation into arbitration. Civil society, on the other hand, speaks with many voices and stands in the shadow of power by political elites. Civil society is not unchanging; it comes in many organizational procedures, it can have wavering degrees of autonomy from the state, and sometimes it can even function as a standby for the state when governments fail to serve their population's essentials (A. W.-S. John, 2008, p. 14). Research also shows that in negotiations among democratic elites, civil society can participate successfully by winning over their respective political representatives and these agreements seem to be as long-lasting as those featuring high civil society participation unaided. Lastly, furthermore, civil society activity helps to form and reinforce the structures of the state by providing greater public contribution into government purposes and policymaking and, in doing so, civil society aids to give legitimacy, support and liability to political actors.

Drawbacks of Civil Society

When it comes to the drawbacks, noise from them is a big issue. For example, civil society groups present at the table could upturn the complexity of a mediation to the point that they could decrease the option of reaching some kind of an agreement. This type of complexity could result from sheer numbers, or from the content of demands and material presented by the groups into the mediation. The second drawback is the voices of society can have the lack of coordination. For instance, civil society groups could create implementation difficulties if they are necessarily disorganized and/or hostile or competitive with one another and with the Track 1 parties. Sometimes it could even be lack of expertise or preparation. For example, civil society groups may be unsophisticated negotiators, sidetracking the mediation or forcing the mediator to spend more time coaching the parties. Sometimes an uncivil Society can be a drawback. In other words, not all organizations are well-intentioned, and some could be possible spoilers or fronts for antagonistic features of the political elite (A. W.-S. John, 2008, p. 70).

Civic Society: Excluding the Voices of the Civilian Public

Why would negotiators and mediators seek to prevent representatives of civil?

society from being present at peace consultations? Civil society appears to be opposing its exclusion from elite-driven peacemaking. The go-ahead of exclusion agrees to many needs in negotiation, among them the desire of principals to manage their internal hardliners (Walton & McKersie 1991: 382 -- 391)

Benefits of Excluding Civil Society

Often times, the exclusion of the civil society is done when there is continuing confrontation or violence, they go to extremities of exclusion and take part in secret talks behind clothes doors with the public even knowing. These "secret meetings" are what Henry Kissinger (1979: 138) called "back channel" negotiations (Pruitt 2006) Even though specialists have depend on exclusion and secrecy to achieve what they considered breakthroughs, these do not come without a price. Even though experts have relied on exclusion and secrecy to understand what they considered breakthroughs, these do not come without a price. For instance, The Palestinian-Israeli breakthroughs that took place in 1993 at Oslo, for example, so acclaimed at the time, were based on secrecy and exclusion.

Drawbacks of excluding Civil Society

Although excluding civil society groups may modernize peace negotiations that are already difficult enough, the nonappearance of their voices and interests at the negotiating table can prove lethal to the peace agreement all through the post conflict peacebuilding phase. Some believe excluding civil society participation at the peace negotiation table -- in theory -- is predicted to disturb the already muddy waters of mutual negotiations in other words they think it might add fuel to the fire (A. W.-S. John, 2008, p. 21).

Even though many governments agree that civil society participation is crucial, (Bamidele-Izu, 2011, p. 6) many also feel that the drawbacks of civil society contribution may outweigh the benefits. Concerns and arguments thrive on both sides. Some are worried that civil society s might establish special interest groups, and that their contribution would always result in policy misrepresentations. Others fear that intergovernmental decision making processes would turn out to be bogged down by civil society, which are not necessarily representative of or answerable to their specific constituencies (Bamidele-Izu, 2011, p. 7). Decision makers are likewise anxious that civil society may seek to usurp the self-governing powers of governments.

If civil society is excluded, then they will not be able to help build the political will for a new approach to development that incorporates environmental and social objectives. If they are not able to participate, then they will not be able to serve as alternatives to weak or inadequate democratic institutions, or be avenues for more inclusive exchange of ideas, or be used as channels for disseminating information on activities and matters inside the global system

Elite Driven Peace: What is the purpose?

At one time, classical diplomacy, European style, was conceived and practiced as an elites-only club. According to Wanis-St. John (2008 p. 18) government and militant leaders, political party heads, warlords, and the usual cast of political elites are usually driving the main forces in argument -- the ones with the guns -- still get the lion's share of attention from international mediators. For example, peacemaking in civil war is a dangerous business. The main source of risk comes from spoilers -- parties and leaders who believe the developing peace intimidates their world view, power, and interests and who use violence to deteriorate efforts in order to get it. An obvious strength of the elite-only strategy in the pre-1900s was its simplification of the players. Nowadays though, popular support is required to a greater level for post-arrangement peace to hold and "the people" can act as spoilers of a peace deal in a greater way.

Governmental Power Sharing

The Elite only strategy could be effective because of its strength in governmental power sharing. One of the reasons why this strategy can be looked at as being more effective or over the involvement of civil society is because of the political power sharing among the elites. This approach is more effective in a civil war because of the access to positions of political and administrative power. In other words, these positions of political and administrative power is important for opposing social groups in that it offers them with visible acknowledgement, a 'say' in decision making and control over government resources (Lindemann, 2010, p. 5). A first clear sign in this respect is the arrangement of government. Yet, an examination of the composition of elite power should not -- as it is usually done -- be restricted to the sharing of ministers and deputy ministers. As an alternative, many experts argue that one should likewise separately look at the circulation of the most important leadership arrangements in what may be labelled the 'inner core' of political power, not least to uncover strategies of 'window dressing'. These inner core are the following:

deputy ministers;

ministers (cabinet);

the 'inner core of political power';

An 'index of representation', which combines the forgoing measures (Lindemann, 2010, p.5).

Military power sharing

The Elite only strategy could be effective in the pre-1900s because of its strength in governmental military power sharing. Access to military power is crucial for competing social groups in that it shapes their feelings of survival and physical security. Even though balanced recruitment at the level of the rank and file may be looked at as being important, it is exclusively representation at the upper stages of the army that really provide groups with a real stake in the security part. Important, therefore, in terms of military power sharing is the arrangement of the officer corps, is made up of the following:

the top command positions;

The higher ranks (Lindemann, 2010, p. 6).

According to Lindemann (2010) exclusive elite bargains were better for their time because they were able to accommodate dominant social cleavages, even out the inter-group competition over the control of state power and in that way favor paths of civil war dodging. Lindemann argues that as opposing social groups revel in inclusive access to positions of military political, and financial power, their leadership does not have an instant motivation to activate protest such as what civilians would do in the inclusive strategy. States underlying an inclusive elite bargain are as a result liable to enjoy somewhat secure and stable power as a united system without involving civilians.

Research shows that exclusionary elite negotiates, by contrast, fail when it comes to accommodating leading social cleavages, intensify inter-group challenges over the sharing of state power and in the end favor routes of civil war beginning. As definite groups enjoy advantaged access to positions of financial, military and political power, the barred leaders will have an instant reason to rally up protest and forcefulness against the state. Observed from this viewpoint, the beginning of civil war must be assumed as stemming from the inability and/or reluctance of ruling political parties to achieve sufficient degrees of elite lodging.

Stasis in Roman Sicily Case: Example of Exclusive Mediation

Research shows that Sicily was an example of an exclusive mediation in which a Roman representative basically performed as a mediator among opposing Sicilian sides, which conformed the aftermath as a result of the wide-ranging financial, party-political, military and symbolic need that the Sicilian superiority had concerning Rome. Moreover, there were occasionally ancestral and mentorship connections among the specific peacemakers along with the cities in general.

Here, the danger of stasis was inherent in every way and, all the way to the point where the Roman government had to step in to bring peace. This was observable in the 3rd century B.C.; King Pyrrhus of Epirus noted: "for all is faction there, her cities have no government, and demagogues are rampant now that Agathocles is gone." (Covino, 2013, p 19) Owing to the continued use of Greek-style political structures, the issue went on persisted long after the coming of Rome.

However, Rome stepping in was able to bring the peace needed to stop the Stasis. The governors of Sicily along with Sicily's patrons, had to maintain the steadiness of civic government so as to make sure the regular supply of corn for Rome and her legions in addition to any additional income produced from the province, for example that stemming from the charging of the portoria or scriptura. (Covino, 2013, p. 20) The Romans were conscious that the cities of Sicily should not be permitted to fall into the hands of the stasis. If they would let them do that would qllow them to do so would be to allow them to abandoned their treaty or the otherwise forced taxes for example the establishment of ships and troops. It would likewise get involved with their collection and delivery of the grain-tithe because of them, or just the grain's delivery in the circumstance of Halaesa, as local governmental functions for instance the collection inspection, and perhaps storing of grain were organized on the civic level. (Covino, 2013, p. 26) During the mediation process, Rome chose not to exercise their power over the cities of Sicily by having her governors openly intervene at the first sign of stasis is instructive. Even though identifying that cities in stasis are of no use to the broader Roman community, nevertheless Rome chose not to be heavy-handed in regards to the situation, helping the civic governments as and when called upon to do so by the Sicilians themselves, following on in the age-old Sicilian tradition, received from the Hellenistic world, of arbitration. While before, the cities of Sicily looked to their colonial 'mother-city' for their mediation requirements, (Covino, 2013, p. 26) or even to Carthage because of her influence over the island, in the Roman age the Sicilian cities hereafter were driven by need to look to Rome, nonetheless not to her instant representative, in their effort to battle to stasiazein.

Thirty Days War Case: Example of Exclusive Mediation

With that said, mediations now days during civil wars are done much different than they were 500 years ago were peace consultations only served the interest of the people such as in the case of the Thirty Days War, which the arbitrating powers were the Spanish and English monarchy, which proved to be a failure. It failed because the interest of these two elite parties had already established cooperation if not full alliance before the war started, excluding the common people (White, 1978, p. 2) The key arbitrating collaborators were the king from England and Spanish Habsburg monarchy, nevertheless they got rid of the religious conflicts and revolutions of the more citizen actors of the civil war. The elite thought they would be able to bring some sort of a resolution and force the distant Germans to bring reconciliation on the basis of their might and personal allegiances to the English and Spanish monarchy. In this mediation it was necessary to use diplomatic means and friendship with Spain. The negotiations were not easy. These mediations could be thought of not as two enemies negotiating a peace, but at the same time rather as many poker players around a table, each interesting in diminishing losses while winning what they could from the other guy. However, a big part of the war had to do with religion but at the end of the day, they did not have anyone from the religious community sit at the table. It was likewise decided that the German diet in deliberating religious matters should divide into a Catholic and a Protestant house, and that agreement was required on any such concern. Europe was divided into religious parties but none of them were allowed to sit at the negotiation table (White, 1978, p. 3). In this situation the lines were drawn for a majo war between the religions which were the Catholics and the Protestants. However, since they were not able to sit at the mediation table, princes were sent that regarded themselves as politica leaders of the two religious groups (White, 1978, p. 3).

Bosnia Case: Example of Exclusive Mediation

The war in Bosnia and Herzegovina has been understood not only as an ethnic conflict but likewise as a war against civil society. The violence was focused not just in contradiction of the civilian population but alongside civility itself (Theros, 2007, p. 4). The war in Herzegovina and Bosnia Herzegovina came about as a result of the disintegration of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. One of the benefits of excluding the civil society was that civil society in Bosnia was weak and still is today, plus they were divided, and largely donor-driven which did not make for good negotitiation (Theros, 2007, p. 6). However, at the same time civil society has been both active and largely ignored in the process of establishing a truth and reconciliation.

However, there were also some drawback for excluding the civil society because civilian were the target during the war. For example, there are Associations of the families of missing persons which started organizing in 1996-7 and expanded all over Bosnia in 1998 (Theros, 2007, p. 6). They militarized in response to the insignificance of the political class to their difficulties and concerns. All these groups are chiefly based in rural areas, most severely hit all through the war. Excluding these voices of society could hindered the negotiations because they were not able to express their concerns about peace.

Libya and Kenya Case: Example of Inclusive Mediation

On conflicting sides of the African landmass, Liberia was established by former slaves in 1847, even though Kenya was occupied by the British in 1888, gaining freedom only in 1963 (Zanker, 2013, p. 2). In spite of these different conflict histories, several shared factors stand out. In both cases civil society groups took part in the arbitration processes, either openly or indirectly. In both cases the final agreements were mediated by external actors and stemmed in interim power-sharing preparations. In the early phase of negotiating a cessation of hostilities only the three conflict parties had been concerned but later this was enlarged to consist of political parties and civil society actors. Civil society organizations were concerned in the consultations in a variability of ways: as official delegates, pressure group activists and unofficial observers. Those invited as official delegates were the Mano River Women's Peace Network (MARWOPNET), the IRCL, the Liberian Bar Association and associates of the Liberian dispersion (Zanker, 2013, p. 2). Civil society groups were invited as official delegates on account of the role they had played in preceding conflict resolution labors. One of the benefits in that these civil society groups were invited as official delegates because of the role they had played in previous conflict resolution efforts (Zanker, 2013, p. 7). Another benefit was that Taylor had been given a list of civil society organizations by ECOWAS, from which he could pick who could take part, thus swaying the variety of the delegates. Mediator Abubakar was supportive of civil society actors being involved, in fact encouraging them to put pressure on the conflict parties to come to an agreement. As one civil society delegate explained how beneficial it was with including the groups: 'I was really involved in talking to the warring parties -- I would go to their hotels. Sometimes they would suspiciously ask, "Why are you coming here? You people were sitting here and we fought, and now you want our positions?" I told them "I don't want the positions -- all I want is for you to stop killing people" (Zanker, 2013, p. 7).

However, there were some drawbacks but not many and in fact the benefits outweighed the drawbacks, for example, some elite noted that they felt that civil society groups present at the negotiations had not been representing the genuine interests of the individuals but were somewhat just trying to advance themselves. Another drawback was that the members of the IRCL explained they had been the only civil society group to turn down seats in the interim government, as they preferred to remain neutral and others at the negotiation table did want them to stay neutral because that would not help them (Zanker, 2013, p. 9). Another drawback was that market women from a discussion group in Ganta went up the point as to suggest that even though civil society actors were praying for peace they played no active role at the discussions. This lack of knowledge was labeled by one civil society activist as reflecting the extensive difficult of a division between a literate elite and an uneducated oral society living in the rural areas.

Colombian case: Example of Inclusive Mediation

As of last May of 2014, Colombia's major guerrilla group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), will be around 50 years old (Isacson, 2014, p. 1) However, when it comes to civil society participating in these negotiations, the victims are the ones that are trying to make the difference with discussions at the table.

Norway the Mediator

Nevertheless, these voices of society are not the only ones trying to bring peace but there are other parties involved such as Norway. Yet, throughout the past 30 years Norway has turned out to be synonymous with peace brokering such as bringing the Colombian government and FARC guerrillas to the peace table from mid-October.

. Norway has been willing to use sufficient money and manpower to stay involved over many years and that cautious and patient approach has gained the confidence of many parties. So what is behind Norway's mediating strength? Are Norwegians better at talking than other people? Research shows that Norway's dogged persistence could help resolve the longest-running armed struggle in the Western Hemisphere. For example, warring parties often feel thankful dealing with a "small, non-threatening and impartial country" like Norway to help settle their disputes. But Norway's status as impartial or neutral actor can be called into question (Are Norwegians better peace negotiators? 2014).

With that being said, Norway will be accompanied at negotiating table with the voices of society which are the conflict victims. Their central message is that a truthfully lasting peace can merely be attained when the rights of victims are fulfilled and recognized. However, not everybody is on board with giving the victims a voice. It needs to be noted that the government has proposed a 'transitional justice' framework, but it is one-sided.

Transitional Justice Framework

This one-sided transitional justice framework is a rough copy of what Uribe did with the paramilitaries. Farc is committed to a justice procedure, nonetheless there is no way Farc will reach agreement to a unilateral procedure of justice, which includes merely the victims of Farc, and simply punishes Farc, and the state is not paying for anything even though it is the main committer of the war. The realism is that the worst massacres in Colombia have been those of the state armed forces with help from paramilitaries (Vulliamy 2012). Farc will merely receive a multilateral judicial or reconciliation procedure, which takes into account crimes by the state and guerrillas, and victims of their violence. The issue is under discussion now in Havana, and it will take quite some time. However, until then, there has been some beneficial work done by the victims in regards to mediation.

Benefits of Victims at Negotiation Table

So far, because of the voice of the victims, there has been agreement in three of the six points on the peace agenda - land reform, political participation and illicit drugs (Colombia conflict victims join Farc peace talks in Cuba, 2014, p. 1). Once both sides reach an agreement on the rights of the victims, they will negotiate the two remaining issues: implementation and disarmament the of the peace deal.

Another benefit was that they were able to help the parties understand need to discover the flexibility needed to agree on measures that provide FARC with adequate security guarantees, up till now leave the reorganization of security forces, whose faults have been well acknowledged, to be challenged through a more sketchily-based political development. Postponing change need not be a bad choice. A successful transition out of the armed conflict would further weaken the case for the current situation and lower internal resistance to reform. But then again the mindful decision not to take advantage of on the drive shaped by the consultations could also enable a commanding military to stall forever However, this virtuous cycle of rural development, political participation and reintegration will require additional guarantees -- even if this comes at the price of weakening the incentives for laying down weapons over the short run.

Drawback at the Negotiating Table in Colombia

It is clear that the civil rights groups and victims groups do have a seat at the negotiating table but not without some drawbacks. The first drawback for them is the fact that FARC faces considerable doubt over the future of its political project. In numerous conflict regions, a progressively organized base is compassionate to its thoughts. Nevertheless provided the heritage of violence and FARC's frequently authoritarian social control, the group cannot accept it will win local power by means of the ballot box. This proposes that it has a motivation to uphold reserve competences to exercise political and social control. Nevertheless this could effortlessly intimidate the legality of FARC's political contribution in the local ground. Another drawback, is that it can risk activating a wider political reaction, as adversaries previously rail against what they fear will amount to an "institutionalization of the current situation" in FARC strongholds. (The Day after tomorrow:Colombia's FARC and the End of The Conflict, 2014, p. 12)

Legal Framework for Peace

In 2012, there was a temporary reform that was made to the Colombian with the passing of a bill that had significant effects for both peace and justice in Colombia (Dodwell 2012). The so called Legal Framework for Peace has the overt aim of facilitating a negotiated solution to the armed conflict peace in Colombia. One of those solution is in regards to the victims. The Legal Framework for Peace adopted in 2012 is a laudable attempt to try to balance the achievement of reconciliation and peace against the victims' rights. For some, it is encouraging to read the Legal Framework for Peace because it is making the settlement of victims a priority. This legal framework was very beneficial for the victims because it is a potentially effective strategy, which was capable of guaranteeing that those most responsible for the violence and its associated human rights violations are brought to justice. However, the legal Framework for Peace was not the only tool used in these negotiations involving civil society, there is a website that the peace talks have utilized in order to inform, involve and petition contribution from civil society and the country on the whole. This website is called the "Mesa de conversaciones" or "Table Talks" in English.

"Mesa de Conversaciones"

Through this website, victims are able to submit proposals on the subtopics and topics of the 6 points of the Agenda in the light of the fullness of the General Agreement ending the conflict and building a stable and permanent peace. This will be beneficial to the victims because members of the talks will have access to each of the proposals and supports that are submitted through the mechanism of participation. Proposals will be analyzed and reviewed by each of the delegations to donate as a participation to the discussions. The information is helpful because the victims provide will only be used based on the talks of the.

Some of these proposals were used in the meeting which was held in Havana, Cuba, between February 23 and August 26, 2012, which was attended by Cuba and Norway as guarantors, and with the support of the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela as a facilitator of logistics and passenger (Colombia conflict victims join Farc peace talks in Cuba 2014). During this negotiation, they were able Compensate the victims it is at the heart of Government agreement - FARC-EP. In this they were able to discuss the human rights of the victims.

Failed Mediations

Not all inclusive and exclusive strategies were effective in a Civil war, the most shared type of war since the end of World War II, is far less probable to be ended by a negotiated agreement than wars between nations, Stedman discovered throughout his doctoral studies at Stanford in the late 1980s (O'Toole 1997). During that time "there were calls for negotiated settlements in El Salvador and South Africa that were successful as exclusive in the modern day.

Successful inclusive mediations were achieved in Zimbabwe, Namibia and El Salvador because society was engaged, but then very quickly ran into the problem with the children of Angola, Cambodia and Rwanda, because of the lack of voices of community. By a huge magnitude we, more people died after the peace accords in Angola and Rwanda than all through the civil wars that preceded them." (O'Toole 1997) Even though excluding civil society groups may streamline peace negotiations that are already complex enough, the absence of their voices and interests at the negotiating table can prove fatal to the peace agreement during the post conflict Peace building phase such as in Angola (A. W.-S. John, 2008, p. 19). Negotiating a second peace arrangement after one has failed is often more expensive in time, money and lives, conference participants said. Therefore the resolution attached to implementation, instead of to mediation itself. When Angola's UNITA rebels went back to war again, the U.N. Security Council were the ones that took a year to apply authorizations, which were not effective, because they did not involve the voices of victims who lost loved ones in the fight. An estimated 300,000 Angolans died in the year following the election (O'Toole 1997).

Conclusion

It can be made clear that it is different now that non-state actors are able to have power in order to be bring peace to the table. The Colombian Case Study proved that the current situations of affairs make it hard for continuing negotiated peace to be reached without involving the voices of civil society such as the victims. The victims are now playing a central role in the struggle for peace which would been almost impossible up under the exclusive strategy. The elite exclusive society such as in the Stasis in Roman Sicily Case and The Bosnian Wars citizens didn't have the power of assembly, via media like they have today. For these cases, it was different because politics and war were considered to be the concerns of monarchs. The elite-only strategy geared more toward the soldiers during that period because the combatants were looked at as being more of the victims, opposite from nowadays such as in Colombia where civil wars are killing more people than civilians.