Armed violence reduction : Armed groups

What issues are involved in engaging with armed groups?

Armed groups are a key feature of contemporary armed conflicts, and as such an inevitable part of ending such conflicts peacefully. Challenges of engaging with those groups are substantial, however, especially given their widely varying characters.   But despite their differences, many share common challenges in the negotiation of peace settlements and the transition to non-violence. These include power sharing, security concerns and transitioning to non-violent politics.

In the course of its work, the HD Centre engages with a wide range of armed groups. In doing so, it aims to expose them to relevant information and analyses on peacemaking options and experiences in order to facilitate negotiated settlements and successful transitions to non-violence. 

What are some of the key challenges faced by armed groups? 

Power-sharing
Armed groups typically have as one of their main goals the ability to assume and/or hold at least shared political power in a district, region or country. Most peace settlements therefore include power-sharing clauses guaranteeing the participation of representatives of significant groups in political decision-making processes-usually at the executive, legislative and ministerial levels, also at provincial and local levels-during a fixed transitional period.  Ideally, political power-sharing arrangements should be complemented by agreements on divisions of power and responsibility in the key institutions of the state-the military, police, and judicial systems, amongst others-and on the reform of those structures to ensure that they do not fall under the control of (a) dominant group(s).

The negotiation of power-sharing agreements is often a tense and protracted process, even beyond the question of different negotiating positions. Armed groups sometimes lack clearly articulated demands, as well as the skilled negotiators necessary for working out agreements. Some groups are not keen to make the transition from a military to a political struggle; others may have to work out differences between internal factions, or between different groups with whom they have been allied or against whom they have battled. Mediators face the challenge of helping armed groups engage while avoiding perceptions of fraternization or partiality.

Beyond these questions, some key issues that armed groups and mediators face while trying to draw up power-sharing agreements include:

Inclusion
Peace processes are often limit ed to a restricted number of participants in order to protect and keep talks moving. The politics of inclusion and exclusion can affect the perceived legitimacy of the negotiation process however. Groups excluded from talks -both armed groups and civil society actors - may act as spoilers. Meanwhile, some groups may also use engagement in a process to gain legitimacy, while at the same time retaining their commitment to armed struggle.

Acknowledging non-violent actors
 The problem of inclusion in a process is particularly acute in relation to political or civil society groups that have not resorted to violence during the conflict. Limiting participation in peace processes to armed groups rewards actors who have used violence to further their demands. Groups which have attempted to follow non-violent paths are often overlooked.

Responsibility
The decision to include a group in a power-sharing agreement does not mean its members and leaders are absolved from the responsibility of having committed atrocities.  Amnesty clauses to protect war criminals from prosecution are increasingly rare, and developments in international criminal law mean even when they are agreed they may be difficult to enforce. 

Providing avenues for new actors
Beyond the question of inclusion/exclusion of existing actors, power-sharing agreements should provide avenues of representation for newly formed opposition groups in order to enable the emergence of new leaders, and lay foundations for long-term institutional development, and ensure that any new political arrangement is representative of the population.

Security issues
The kinds of conflicts in which armed groups are involved - civil wars and inter-communal conflicts -a re fought largely, and sometimes exclusively, with small arms and light weapons, which not only suit the nature of irregular warfare, but also require little money or training. In 2007 it was estimated by the Small Arms Survey that armed groups held a mere one per cent of the world's estimated 850 million small arms and light weapons. However, the impact of guns in the hands of such groups is disproportionate: according to a Norwegian Refugee Council study, armed rebel groups accounted for more than half the world's new population displacement in 2003. Despite the obvious dangers of boosting weapons levels in areas on the verge of violent conflict, states continue to reserve the right to arm non-state actors. Debate on weapons transfers to armed groups continues at various levels, yet there is no movement towards a universal ban on weapons sales to such groups.

A wide range of work is underway to explore and address the array of security-related challenges that armed groups pose to peace processes, and vice versa. Such work increasingly extends its focus beyond the traditional question of restricting the supply of weapons, to taking into consideration the factors driving the demand and misuse of weapons by armed groups. In the context of peace processes, the standard policy and programmatic response to these factors is to institute disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) programmes aimed at reducing the amout of weapons held by both state and non-state forces, often under the umbrella of security sector reform. It is increasingly recognized that the revitalization of slow, unrepresentative or unjust judicial processes is a critical and necessary complement to such processes. Read more on justice and peacemaking.

Some of the challenges encountered by armed groups in relation to security issues include:

Ensuring that security issues reach the main negotiating table
All too frequently, security issues are treated as "technical" issues to be addressed in parallel to, or after, the main peace negotiations, and as a consequence receive only cursory treatment or are addressed too late in the process to avert costly mistakes.

Engagement and safety
Armed groups which have a degree of leverage in peace processes have stronger incentives for entering into a DDR process. Agreements require provisions to protect members of groups that agree to demobilize against violence-revenge, counter-attack, and violent crime by those retaining arms.

Providing information on weapons holdings, combatant numbers and aspirations - Start early to obtain accurate information
Accurate figures about the memberships and total weapons stocks of armed groups are usually hard to come by and can be a confusing factor in peace negotiations and consequent agreements. Providing this information has significant tactical and symbolic consequences.

Ensuring the economic future of former fighters
All too frequently, reintegration packages do not focus enough on the detailed socio-economic analysis and programmes necessary to ensure that former fighters will be able to sustain a living. At the same time, overall poverty reduction efforts are vital to avoid creating an affluent minority of former fighters against the backdrop of an impoverished majority who are ‘neglected' for not having taken up arms and may in turn be driven to violence, for instance violent crime, to survive.

Transitioning to non-violence
 The transition to non-violence by armed groups following a peace agreement is a complicated process. For armed group members, demobilisation has the potential to lead to a positive ‘remobilisation' into a national peace building and reconstruction process. However, the reintegration of former fighters into non-violent civilian life and building of peaceful societies face countless challenges.

Some issues faced by armed groups and mediators include: 

Making the transition from armed wings to political parties
Legal frameworks for reintegration must include the suspension of criminal proceedings arising from mere membership in a banned group, and the legal acknowledgement both of new political organisations and of their right to participate in elections. Such frameworks require close follow-up to ensure effective and correct implementation. Permissible amnesties and mechanisms for access to electoral processes should be precise and flexible, in order to facilitate guerrillas' incorporation into politics and into the legal regime in force.

Reconciliation and justice
Failing to address painful issues from the past not only postpones societal healing and institutionalises impunity, but also pushes individuals and groups towards acts of revenge. The competence of national courts and the viability of traditional reconciliation mechanisms are thus vital. A particularly complicated issue is that of cases where perpetrators of violence have also been victims of violence themselves.

Ending cultures of violence
 Movement towards non-violent societies involves effective weapons control anddisarmament coupled with effective anti-gun policies, including gun control laws, weapons collection and confiscation programmes. Such movement also involves the development of a ‘culture of peace' through effective measures against social and family violence, the establishment of alternative conflict resolution mechanisms, and education programmes.  

Assistance to survivors of armed violence
Violent conflict leaves a lasting legacy of physical and mental illness in former fighters and civilians alike. Survivors of armed violence are legitimate stakeholders in peace processes, and their needs, including access to physical or psychological rehabilitation services and long-term care; special consideration for survivors and victims in the re/integration efforts; dedicated welfare or medical services; or direct attention for those who have been sexually violated,  should be addressed in peace talks.

What activities has the HD Centre undertaken to address those issues?

In early 2009, as part of the peace facilitation work of the HD Centre in the Philippines, former senior members of armed groups participated in a set of meetings exploring the Northern Ireland and south Sudan peace processes.

The 2008 series, Viewpoints: Reflections on Guns, Fighters and Armed Violence in Peace Processes, included first-hand views on security, justice and human rights issues in peace processes by former rebels

In October 2007, the HD Centre hosted a meeting of former rebels from Mozambique, El Salvador, Zimbabwe, Mali, Eritrea, East Timor and other locations. The meeting was one of several experts gatherings convened as part of the ‘Negotiating Disarmament' project.  Participants reflected on their experiences of security issues in the peace processes they were involved in at various levels.

In May 2004, the HD Centre convened a meeting in Bamako, Mali as part of the 'Putting People First' project (closed) dialogue series with a focus on the issue of weapons transfers to armed groups. The meeting was organised with the support of the Malian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. A briefing paper was prepared by Dr. David Capie, of the Armed Groups Project, University of British Columbia, to serve as a basis for discussion.

Further resources