Adaptive Peacemaking in Protracted Conflicts: IGAD Mediation in the Second Sudanese Civil War
| Date | 01 June 2019 |
| Published date | 01 June 2019 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12697 |
Adaptive Peacemaking in Protracted Conflicts:
IGAD Mediation in the Second Sudanese Civil
War
Michael J. Butler
Clark University
Abstract
The dynamic quality of protracted intra-state conflicts is a factor that complicates and sometimes confounds the efforts of
peacemakers. Building on this insight, and given the prevalence of conflicts of this type in the contemporary international sys-
tem, this paper takes up a central question: how can peacemakers adapt to changing dynamics along the parameters of a
protracted intra-state conflict in order to cultivate effective resolution of the conflict? Inspired by the theme of this special
issue on new diplomacy in new conflicts, this paper draws on and modifies the concepts of ‘adaptive peacemaking’and
‘adaptive peacebuilding’(de Coning, 2018; Okulski, 2017) in order to provide a heuristic device for evaluating peacemaking
efforts within protracted intra-state conflicts. In that vein, this paper examines third-party mediation within the setting of the
second Sudanese civil war through the lens of a modified adaptive peacemaking approach. The resulting analysis allows for a
conceptual and empirical assessment of the prospects as well as the perils of ‘adaptive peacemaking’within the context of
protracted civil wars.
Introduction
Whether one considers the effects of an ever-evolving inter-
national system (Rubin, 2002) or the domestic social con-
texts which are the theatre for the vast majority of armed
conflicts today (UCDP, 2018), the contextual environment in
which conflict and, by extension, peacemaking occurs has a
significant bearing on outcomes (Butler, 2018). This is partic-
ularly the case when considering protracted intra-state con-
flicts. Marked by the long-term persistence of armed
violence, protracted intra-state conflicts are thought to be
“obdurately resistant”to mitigation and resolution through
negotiation, mediation, and other peacemaking efforts (Zart-
man, 1995). Often permeated by complicating factors such
as asymmetries in power, the presence or possibility of
external patronage and/or intervention, the tendency
toward factionalism and spoilers, and the presence of ideo-
logical and/or identity-based grievances underlying the con-
flict, the complex dynamics typifying protracted civil wars
pose particular and pernicious challenges for conflict man-
agement and resolution.
One such conflict that meets these defining criteria yet
was ultimately if tenuously ’resolved’through the efforts of
external peacemakers is the second Sudanese civil war
(1983–2005). Largely an extension and intensification of the
first Sudanese civil war (1955–1972), it resulted in over 2
million deaths and over 4 million displaced persons (U.S.
Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, 2001). Notwith-
standing the severity of the conflict or its implications for
the current conflict in South Sudan, peacemaking efforts in
the second Sudanese civil war –particularly the third-party
mediation of a regional organization (RO), the Intergovern-
mental Agency on Development (IGAD) –have been hailed
for producing a detailed and multifaceted peace accord, the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2005. As such,
the second Sudanese civil war represents something of a
bellweather with respect to mediation of a protracted intra-
state conflict.
What is adaptive peacemaking?
To the extent that IGAD mediation can be viewed as a suc-
cess, it was largely due to the employment of an adaptive
peacemaking approach. The origins, evolution, and essence
of adaptive peacemaking are telling in this regard.
Origins
Although it has deeper conceptual roots, adaptive peace-
making is a notion that explicitly entered the conflict resolu-
tion lexicon in the 1970s (Okulski, 2017). This was largely
due to growing recognition of efforts by indigenous com-
munities and advocates to pursue justice and restitution
efforts through use of traditional and culturally relevant
mechanisms and processes, either to supplement or sup-
plant prevailing adversarial approaches (Okulski, 2017).
Rather than assigning responsibility or fashioning punish-
ment in ways consistent with a retributive justice paradigm,
adaptive (sometimes referred to as traditional or tribal)
peacemaking was distinguished by a focus on reconciliation
and the promotion of peace and harmony in the commu-
nity, largely through approaches informed by and
Global Policy (2019) 10:Suppl.2 doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12697 ©2019 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Global Policy Volume 10 . Issue Supplement 2 . June 2019 93
Special Issue Article
To continue reading
Request your trial