Theory of Conflict Resolution - Boundary Dispute in Sudan's Abyei Region - Case Study Example

Theory of Conflict Resolution Author name Institutional affiliation Date Introduction Conflict resolution is the process that is initiated to bring about peace between two conflicting parties. Theorist consider some conflicts to be good than peace; an example of such conflict is the conflict that arises for the struggle for justice. Conflict resolution does not make any meaning if at the end of the disputes it brings about undesirable peace; for instance, at the end of dispute injustice continues to prevail (Ramsbotham, Miall & Woodhouse, 2011). The process of conflict resolution starts from disengaging from conflict which is bad though sometimes justified and moving towards peace which may as well be undesirable. Moral philosophers argue that conflict is not always undesirable while peace is not always desirable; to decide on the best course of actions, ethical principles of life must be considered. The truly desirable cause of action is a major subject of moral philosophy, psychology, ethics, politics and social philosophy (Condliffe, 2008). Most of the common conflicts facing nations, groups and individuals come as a result of ‘needs’ or human desire (Ramsbotham, Miall & Woodhouse, 2011). The main theme of this paper is to determine why it is important for human beings to sacrifice their desires for long-term happiness by reducing or eliminating their desires in the interest of human well-being. The paper will use the example of the boundary dispute in Sudan's Abyei region to justify how human desires can led to conflict and why sacrificing human desire is important for the true well-being of the people. I Thesis: The focus of this paper is to determine why it is important for human beings to sacrifice their desires for long-term happiness by reducing or eliminating their desires in the interest of human well-being using the Sudan’s Abyei region bounder dispute. Case description Two competing ethnic groups in Sudan namely: the Arab Misseriya and the Ngok Dink have for a long time been engaged in competing claims of the ownership of the cattle grazing pasture in Abyei region of Sudan which is also rich in oil. The Misseriya ethnic group is lives to the north while Ngok Dink lives south of Abyei. In 2005, the Sudanese government and the Southern Sudan representatives agreed to have negotiations on reaching a comprehensive peace agreement (CPA) to end the long term battle (Johnson, 2008). However, the negotiating parties failed to resolve the conflict and instead agreed to establish a boundary commission, the Abyei Boundary Commission (ABC). The commission’s mandate was to evaluate the historical and conflicting claims arising from the dispute and finally demarcate a border between the disputing groups. According to the CPA, ABC was supposed to publicly release its final report and the findings. The report was completed in July the same year but the Sudanese Government has never released the document neither accepting the findings of the commission. On the other hand, the Sudan People Liberation Movement (SPLM) that represented the Southern Sudan supported the release of the ABC’s final report. It is worth to note that the release of the ABC report by the Government of Sudan would not end the conflict but it would have been a major step to implementing the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (Johnson, 2008). In addition, releasing the report would be an indicator of the Sudanese Government commitment in resolving the conflict. The United States Institute of Peace (USIP) got interested in the Abyei conflict and on August 30, 2005, it convened Sudan Peace Forum. The institute is a nonpartisan and independent body established by the congress to help in resolving violent international conflicts through its various peace programs. The purpose of the forum was to discuss future of the CPA, implications of the ABC reports and Sudan peace process in general. Ambassador Donald Petterson, the chairman of ABC provided the forum with details of its mandate, evaluation process and the decisions reached; and Dr. David Smock, a director of the USIP gave an insight of the changing political environment in Sudan. The Sudan Peace Forum summarized the presentations made by the two speakers and the discussion of the forum and made its own observations (Johnson, 2008). The forum found that the Abyei area is a bridge between the north and south. The two ethnic groups have shared the cattle pastures and other resources since the eighteenth century when they occupied Kordofan province. During the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium in 1905, the British decide to transfer nine Ngok chiefdoms to Kordofan province from Bahr el-Ghazal (Johnson, 2008). During the first civil war, the Government of Sudan armed the Misseriya while the Ngok Dinka aligned itself with the SPLM. This was the start point of the current dispute since it gave rise to the issue of ownership of Abyei resulting to fighting. At the end of the second civil war, Ngok Dinka had been displaced from the area and Misseriya claimed Abyei to be theirs (Johnson, 2008). From these findings, it was thus impossible to resolve the issue in CPA. The Abyei Protocol, a proposal by America in 2004 would later be adopted by the Government of Sudan and the SPLM (Donaldson & Pratt, 2006). The protocol required that ABC demarcate and define the area dominated by the nine Ngok Dinka chiefdoms (Johnson, 2008). Further according to the report, ABC was supposed to submit its report to the president of Sudan who was required to put the special administrative status of Abyei immediately. In addition, the protocol also stated how the oil revenues should be distributed among the involved parties. It was for this reason that the Government of Sudan and SPLM reached a consensus in December 2004 to adopt the Abyei Protocol. They also agreed on the composition of the commission, five to come from both sides and another team of five impartial experts. The experts were to listen from representatives from Misseriya and Ngok Dinka and determine whether ABC report was based on scientific research (Johnson, 2008). The experts visited the Abyei region to collect the local views. It learnt from the Misseriya and the Government of Sudan that the Ngok Chiefdom in 1905 settled south of Bahr El-Arab River and that the Misseriya settled permanently in Abyei before the Ngok arrived. They further stated that they even invited the Ngok Dinka to the region. On the other hand, the Ngok Dinka and the SPLM insisted that they had settled both north and south of the river Bahr El-Arab (Donaldson & Pratt, 2006). To that point, the experts realized that the locals had been coached and instead opted to refer to the historical records to determine the boundary (Johnson, 2008). The peace experts opted to examine documents in the Records office, maps of Sudan National Survey and other Documents in the University of Khartoum. They did not find any map indicating the boundaries of the Ngok Dink chiefdom neither document indicating that a certain group possessed the land. Before coming up with the decision, the commission met the Government of Sudan and another one with SPLM. After the Southern Sudan interim government was sworn in, the commission submitted its findings to the president of Sudan, Omar Bashir. The commission concluded that the Misseriya and the Ngok had equal rights to use the land north and south of disputed boundary since no group had adequate evidence to proof the ownership of land (Johnson, 2008). The Misseriya did not accept the commission’s report as well as President Omar Bashir. They maintained the position that the commission surpassed its mandate and that the report could only be considered as a recommendation to the president who had the authority to make such decisions. The then vice president of Southern Sudan supported the commission’s decision and was contended with its report admitting that the commission was effective in fulfilling its mandate by the Protocol signed between SPLM and the Government of Sudan (Donaldson & Pratt, 2006). II Argument for I From the case description, the boundary dispute in Sudan's Abyei region can be attributed to greed where both the Ngok Dinka and the Misseriya groups claim ownership of land due to its richness in pasture and oil. No evidence was retrieved from the records office, national survey office and the University of Khartoum indicated that any of the group could proof ownership of the land. The Abyei Boundary Commission therefore had to make a decision that considered the interests of each of the groups by concluding that both groups had equal rights to use the resources. This approach to conflict can be considered to be collaborating or win-win approach. This approach tends to solve the problem at hand by finding solution that will satisfy the needs of the parties involved (Schellenberg, 1996). The approach views conflict resolution to yield mutual benefits for all the parties. Condliffe (2008) adds that the win-win process starts by identifying the underlying concerns of the disputing parties and ends by finding alternative solutions that would meet the needs of the opponents. The Abyei Boundary Commission concluded that the Ngok Dinka and the Misseriya groups needed to share the grazing pasture of the disputed area and the oil resources were to be shared by the Government of Sudan and SPLM. Before arriving to this decision, the ABC was tasked to identify the underlying issues in the conflict and make recommendations. Since there lacked any evidence to proof that either of the group owned the land, the ABC opted to go for a win-win approach so that the two groups would feel satisfied. Sampson et al. (2003) argue that win-win approach requires the commitment of all the parties involved so that a mutually acceptable solution can be reached (Worchel & Simpson, 1998). However, the Abyei dispute has remained unsolved since the Misseriya along with the government of Sudan have not been collaborative. The decision reached by ABC was accepted by SPLM which supports the Ngok Dinka but the Sudanese president who supports the Misseriya has been reluctant to adopt the ABC recommendations since. The Misseriya still believes that the land is theirs since they were the first occupant; this could not be accepted as there was no documentary evidence. This is an expression of lack of collaboration which arises from selfish interests. Win-win approach is an effective strategy for conflict resolution since it ensures that future effective collaboration is built especially in the case of shared resources (Tillet & French, 2006). The case of Abyei requires the groups to have an effective collaboration since the reason for the dispute is based on shared resources. Such resources would need to be mutually shared in order to ensure that the two groups focus on the sustainability of the resources. III Antithesis Sacrificing human desires by eliminating or reducing their needs for the interest of human well-being cannot result to peace. IV Argument for II The Abyei boundary dispute cannot be resolved if Misseriya and the Government of Sudan cannot loosen their hearts and reduce their needs for the grazing pasture and oil. The dispute can easily be resolved since SPLM that supports the Ngok Dinka group already accepted the decisions made by the Abyei Boundary Commission. However, since the win-win approach requires the collaboration of the two parties, the conflict resolution process failed because the Misseriya and the Government of Sudan are not collaborative. The reason why the Misseriya are not collaborative is because they feel that they should have the entire ownership of the land or even have a bigger share of it since they believe that the land was meant for them but not the Ngok Dinka. The Government of Sudan is a major obstacle to the conflict resolution process since it supports the Misseriya to object the decisions made by ABC. According to Ramsbotham, Miall and Woodhouse (2011) the true source of conflict is based on values and different perceptions of the possibility of meeting the needs of the people at war. These values and perceptions arise from the desire of finite goods like energy and land resources (Worchel & Simpson, 1998). The issue of understanding the underlying causes of conflict provides opportunities and challenges to the process of conflict resolution (Ramsbotham, Miall & Woodhouse, 2011). Moral philosophers and social scientists believe that the value conflict is intractable than dispute of resources or territory. For this reason, the values and perceptions of the Ngok Dinka and the Misseriya can be very effective in resolving the Abyei boundary dispute. It is clear that both groups are fighting over the land since they believe that ownership of that land will guarantee happiness for them and their generations. If the both groups decide to reduce or eliminate this happiness, they are likely reducing their interest over Abyei. Reducing these desires by both groups can only happen when the resources are shared equally based on mutual understanding. It is thus upon the Government of Sudan and the Misseriya to agree to share the Abyei resources if they value the need of human well-being. V. Rebuttal of IV Human values and perceptions are important aspects when resolving conflicts (Lewicki, Saunders & Minton, 1999). There are two options available in resolving the Abyei dispute: the winner takes all and the win-win approach. Henderson (1996) considers the winner takes all negotiation to be successful and unethical where one party uses the ignorance of the other party, lies, uses persuasive rhetoric, speed, and fails to provide some information. However, when moral values and principles are employed for the purpose of promoting happiness and the interests of all, such sharp practices should not have a role to play in conflict resolution (Lewicki, Saunders & Minton, 1999). This is case is very applicable when most of the things are equal. Win-win approach opted by the ABC seems most appropriate based on ethical and moral principles. This is so because there is was no evidence available to suggest that one group would win the case and thus take all as suggested by the two groups. Since the Ngok Dinka had concurred with the decisions made by ABC, Misseriya and the Government of Sudan thus opted for Winner takes all; this is unethical considering that the two groups have lived in Abyei for a very long time. Lewicki, Saunders and Minton (1999) identify various ethical issues for both parties that need to be considered during conflict resolution. Disclosure and non-disclosure of information arising from deliberate concealment, confidentiality and honesty or dishonesty. Such a scenario is common in the case of imbalance of power, positional disadvantage, dishonesty techniques and the manipulation of one party by the other. Condliffe (2008) adds that the expectation of the parties in conflict should be addressed; this is done through fair and honest clarification of what is to be done by the third party. Failure to provide such clarification may worsen the conflict since the parties may feel that the decisions reached were not as per their expectations. Tillet and French (2006) identified the issue of justice, fairness and equity in the conflict resolution process. The entire process of conflict resolution and the outcomes should be based on these ethical principles. The whole process should thus be fair even if it may not end the conflict (Lewicki, Saunders & Minton, 1999). These ethical principles are very important when address conflict (Tillet & French, 2006). The Abyei Boundary Commission was faced with several challenges when the peace experts interviewed the local people living in Abyei. The information disclosed by both groups was manipulated by their leaders implying that the experts would not rely on it. Further, both groups had support from their leaders which lead to biased information from both sides. To some extent, the Ngok Dinka felt inferior since Misseriya was supported by the Government of Sudan; this was evident even during the war when the government supplied the Misseriya with fire arms. The ABC met both sides before coming up with its final report so as to ensure that the process was participatory. To come up with the final report, justice, fairness and equity were major ethical principles that the ABC adopted. As such, there was no way that ABC would favor one side considering that there was no evident collected that described how the bounder was supposed to be. Conclusion The need to sacrifice human desire by reducing or eliminating human needs is important for the purpose of human well-being. The Abyei dispute discussed in this paper is a good illustration of how a conflict can be resolved if the disputing parties opt to sacrifice their desires. The Ngok Dinka and the Misseriya community are engaged in a conflict because both groups are interested in the shared Abyei region which is rich in grazing pasture and oil resources. Since the two groups have lived in the region for a long time and none of the group can proof the ownership of the land, there is no way that one of the groups can be removed from the area. The only remaining option is thus for the groups to live together and share the resources as suggested by the Abyei Boundary Commission. However, the groups can only live cohesively if they agree to sacrifice the long-term happiness which they believe can be achieved when the land is assigned to one of the group. Happiness is a value that can be sacrificed for the purpose of human well-being. This is because the underlying cause of the dispute is the happiness that would be realized by owning the rich land. This happiness is based on human perception and can be adjusted if the political interference is minimized; this Government of Sudan is a major obstacle in the peace process since it is not collaborative. It is thus wise for the international community to intervene if the dispute is to be fully resolved. References Condliffe, P. (2008). Conflict management: a practical guide.  3rd ed. LexisNexis Butterworths: Chatswood, N.S.W.  Donaldson, J. & Pratt, M. (2006). Boundary and Territorial Trends in 2004. Geopolitics, 10, (2): 398-427. Henderson, H. (1996). Building a win-win world. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Johnson, D. (2008). Why Abyei Matters: The Breaking Point of Sudan's Comprehensive Peace Agreement? Journal of African affairs, 107, (426): 1-19. Lewicki, R., Saunders, D. & Minton, J. (1999). Negotiation. (3rd edition). McGraw Hill: Irwin. Ramsbotham, O., Miall, H. & Woodhouse, T. (2011). Contemporary conflict resolution: The prevention, management and transformation of deadly conflicts. (3rd edition). Malden, MA: Polity Press. Sampson, C. et al. (2003). Positive approaches to peace building. Washington DC: Pact Publications. Schellenberg, J.A. (1996). Conflict resolution: Theory, research and practice. Albany: S.U.N.Y. Press. Tillet, G. & French, B. (2006). Resolving conflict, (3rd edn). Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Worchel, S. & Simpson, J. (1998). Conflict between groups and persons. Chicago: Nelson Hall. Read More