In spite of a strong preference for African solutions to African conflicts within the African system of states, non-African third parties are frequently involved in mediation in Africa, most frequently in cooperation with African third parties. Yet, the factors that explain the outcomes of non-African involvement remain largely understudied. This article addresses this gap in research through employing a comparative case study between the Naivasha peace process between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement that led to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2005 and the Abuja peace process between the Government of Sudan and the Darfurian rebels that led to the Darfur Peace Agreement in 2006. These cases suggest that non-African leverage coordinated by African third parties enhances the prospects for mediation success, while uncoordinated non-African leverage seems to supplant efforts of African third parties. The phrase African solutions to African challenges should therefore be understood as a division of labour, rather than an excuse for non-African third parties to ignore Africa’s problems or African third parties acting on their own. While African third parties should take the lead in resolving civil wars in Africa, non-African third parties should support these processes by lending additional strength.
repository
Continue to search the repository
You might also like
Some Infos
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor.
Pages
- About Our County Profiles
- Blog
- Case Studies Grid
- Central Equatoria
- Conflict Sensitivity Resource Facility South Sudan
- Contact Us
- Contribute a Repository Article
- County Profile HTML links
- County Profiles
- COVID-19 HUB
- Covid-19 information page
- CSRF About Us
- CSRF Helpdesk
- CSRF Helpdesk Form
- CSRF Login
- Dashboard
- Deliverables
- Demo
- Events
- Forgot password
- Guides, Tools and Checklists
- Helpdesk
- Home
- Latest
- Looker Studio
- Subscribe