Why Do Peace Agreements Hold Or Fail
Pitfalls in achieving peace – Don`t underestimate their power Conflicts in Africa often reflect a collapse of peace agreements that have been methodically dismantled by politicians who want to escape power controls, while surveillance is weak. Vigilance is essential because early progress is not a guarantee of long-term success. 1. There has been an erroneous concept and initiation process, as no formula has been developed, containing a definition of the problem and interests of the contestants in a common concept of equity.2. No exchange of proposals, concessions and agreements containing such a formula.3. Calls for a ceasefire, the demilitarization of the capital and free and fair elections are unrealistic because there was no basis for reaching an agreement.4 No understanding through mediation of the deeply rooted sources of conflict – group identity, security, recognition, autonomy, dignity and fear of the death of groups on the one hand, and refusal to submit again to the domination of others.5. It is not possible to find a solution that is relevant to the type of conflict in the (local ethnic) region and to impose solutions such as a Eurocentric constitution and an electoral race in the search for national unity. “… Peace strategies must be formulated that guarantee life, membership, property and identity. Unity should not be absolute; Nor should sovereignty be sacred. Sustainable peace strategies can include administrative decentralization, autonomy, federalism and separation. 6. Ineffective peacekeeping has violated peacekeeping standards and requirements, causing institutional frustration and regional disillusionment. 7.
Peacekeeping mandates, including disarmament, army organization and security, were too broad, ambitious and unrealistic in a country where the ceasefire had never been maintained and where the country`s effective interaction had never been achieved.8. Peacekeeping operations have been tormented by vague and flexible reference and operational procedures, including the role and functions of the peacekeeping force and a lack of understanding of the neutrality of the peacekeeping force. 9. The peacekeeping mandate was not specific and unrealistic, and not all parties to the conflict agreed with him and did not work with him. The peacekeeping force had limited military capabilities and threatened the security of the Mission in accordance with the principle of non-use of force.10 The lack of cooperation within the body that approves the peacekeeping mission (Regional Union), ideological differences, differing motivations for participation and non-impartiality have undermined “the unity of purpose, impartiality, credibility and, ultimately, capacity”. 11. Operations went beyond the financial possibilities of the Regional Union. Members had to support their own troops and uncertain funding compromised the efficiency and effectiveness of the mission.12 The Regional Union`s peacekeeping and peacekeeping efforts should have been complemented by a non-peace service that did not exist (using resources and expertise to effectively assist in humanitarian aid, reconstruction, surveillance, sustainable development, including in urgent measures). The peace talks that culminated in the Lomé Convention were organized by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and occupied interesting actors such as the Interfaith Council of Sierra Leone and members of civil society (Paris, 2004); Hayner, 2007). Although the actors met with RUF members and put their demands on the agenda, their efforts would still not place RUF rebels in peaceful cooperation (Hayner, 2007; Olonisakin, 2008). Violations of the ceasefire have been widespread (Berman- Labonte, 2006). Despite the fact that the rebel leader of the RUF has gained considerable influence within the government and has been tasked with managing the country`s strategic resources, including diamonds, the rebel group has always tried to halt the