Darfur 2009: The Art of Peacebuilding in Siena

The Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution (ICAR) is actively engaged in peacebuilding efforts in response to the conflict in Darfur, a conflict that has left over 300,000 dead and two million people displaced from their homes since 2003. Such peacebuilding efforts constitute a core mission of the Institute, and were given a boost in July 2009 when 17 representatives from six armed movements involved in the conflict met in a neutral setting for a consultation aimed at promoting peace in this ravaged region. The movements represented were: the United Resistance Front, the United Revolutionary Forces Front, the Sudan Liberation Movement-Unity Sudan Liberation Movement-Juba Unity, the Sudan Federal Democratic Alliance, and the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLA-Wahid).

Three other groups actively engaged in the conflict chose not to attend, including the Justice Equality Movement.

The venue for this consultation—a tranquil 13th century monastery outside of Siena, Italy;offered a stark contrast to the kind of devastation that Darfuris have experienced. The facilitators attending the consultation included Christopher Mitchell and Daniel Rothbart from ICAR, Ronald Fisher from American University, and Suliman Giddo from the Darfur Peace and Development Organization in Washington, D.C. Their work benefitted enormously from the contributions of graduate assistants Tres Thomas, Fatima Hadji, Ashad Sentongo, and Martha Mutisi. ICAR professor Wallace Warfield provided expert guidance in the months preceding and following the consultation, which also benefited from analysisand advice provided by a “second circle” of Darfur scholars and other experts who are engaged in the issue on a regular basis.

Designed as a problem-solving workshop, the objectives of the consultation were:
•To open new channels of dialogue among the factions of the Darfur movement
•To establish a forum for solidifying harmonious relations among these factions
•To develop a strategy for negotiating with all parties in the conflict
•To recognize that the differences among the Darfuri factions should not be used to undermine the commitment to peace.

Throughout the course of the conference, the facilitators revised the designs and plans in real time, as critical breakthroughs emerged in the process. In effect, the participants began to take control of the consultative process itself, affirming in practice their commitment to work together for a common purpose and to build harmonious relationships. By the end of day two, the original design was reimagined in ways that enabled participants to work efficiently towards formulating their position statement.

Recognizing the importance of these objectives, the participants actively engaged in constructive dialogue on the conflict’s root causes, the sources of fragmentation among the armed movements, and a shared vision for a future Darfur and Sudan. Participants paid careful attention to fundamental questions that are often ignored in discussions by actors engaged in the immediacy of events on the ground. In effect, the constulatation participants exhibited skills that we in the field attribute to reflective practitioners—probing deep into analytical and normative questions that lie submerged beneath the empirical questions about events, statements, and policies. Such skills also include reflection on presuppositions of group actions, beliefs, and strategies. As an example, one question that was formulated focused on how, exactly, to define a movement given the amorphous character of the groups and their frequent fragmentation. Another moment of critical reflection centered on how the question of how to prioritize the known causes of violence in explanations of the conflict—or how to provide a comparative evaluation of the problems of marginalization of Darfuris versus those of land reform.

Behind the scenes the participants deliberated into the night about past grievances, accusations, and apologies. These dual modes of dialogue (by day and by night) operated to mutual effect, as the sequence of events in the daytime problem-solving workshops intertwined with the labor of reconciliation at night. Such private exchanges were fostered by Suliman Giddo who had developed personal relationships with some of the participants, which enabled him to wade through the twists and turns of many tense conversations.

In the end, the partnership between the consultants and the participants was fruitful, yielding important results. The participants crafted a position statement that represented a bold commitment to seek a harmonious relationshipmong the various movements. With their unanimous assent to the Siena statement, the participants, in effect, renounced the use of violence as a means of settling disputes and accepted the necessity of establishing a common platform in preparation for the negotiations with the Government of Sudan. The Siena consultation complements the work of official negotiations currently underway by providing an unofficial forum for dialogue and analysis that can be used to increase understanding and build relationships among the parties.