The past few weeks have been very edifying but I am left with still many more questions than answers. As much as the conflict here is complex, it still seems approachable, malleable, and conducive to some form of dialogue-driven solution. However other sources of violence unrelated to the political conflict continue to remain on the periphery, as ever present threats to any successful peace negotiation.
The movement here started as a push for independance following years of complaints of physical, political and economic isolation. This "structural violence" gave rise to outcries for justice or separation. Peaceful demonstrations increased in frequency and intensity throughout the 70s and reached a climax in December 1982 when security forces responded to a jubilant crowd with the force of arms. From that moment forward the movement became an armed rebellion. Small hit and run assaults on government targets from a ragtag group of men continued throughout the 80s until a paramilitary force emerged in 1990 with the help of former soldiers who trained and led this then formidable independence movement whose rear bases were located primarily in Guinea Bissau.
With threats of war with Guinea Bissau over oil, the Senegalese government wasted no time in suing for peace. A 1991 ceasefire agreement and 1992 peace accord had great potential to bring an end to the conflict. The Senegal government had recently decided to implement a 1974 law for decentralized government which gave local citizens greater say in the decisions of local government regarding economic and social development. It would have been a simple matter to associate these efforts with the peace process. Regretfully, no link was made and the peace process was little more than lip service to the demands of the rebel movement. The rebels agreed to stop the armed assaults and give up their calls for independence in exchange for increased political and economic power and unfettered access to commercial outlets for former rebel fighters - including access to the very lucrative lumber industry which the rebels were allowed to operate without state intervention and without the requirement that they disarm.
What would seem on the surface to be an ideal arrangement became a source of great contention and led to the first split in the movement. Two new movements emerged - the Northern Front whose leader signed the accord and the Southern Front which, under the leadership of a Catholic priest, became known as the radical wing of the movement insisting on independence as the only acceptable outcome.
Many more splits occurred - some along ideological lines, others along ethnic lines, but the most important ones over money which the government began to use as a means to seduce, disrupt, and discredit the movement's leadership. Ideology gave way to concerns of self-preservation and contested leadership, as control over the rank and file - composed mostly of young men - began to fade. The emergence of highway robberies, assaults on military posts, and aggravated assaults on civilians including rape became difficult to interpret as part of any particular strategy.
Yesterday while talking with a group of youth about their new year's resolutions, one teenager commented on the recent armed robbery in a village about 5 miles from Ziguinchor. "That was not the MFDC," he asserted. "That was us. We are doing this." My first thought was how was this group of young men - 12- 16 in age - pulling off such a difficult operation. "You mean you...?" I barely got the words out of mouth when my confusion was met immediately with assurances that they were using the communal "US." Their uncles and cousins routinely rented weapons from the movement's rank and file to go hunting and, at times, to hold up unlucky travelers.
Peace - the kind with a capital "P" - will be difficult to find in this region unless people here are willing to start talking openly about the sources of instability and insecurity in the region. Negotiated accords will bring peace to the international donor community wary of investing too much money in development projects that will be sabotaged by renewed unrest, but it may mean little to the average villager who continues to see life's solutions and problems at the end of the barrel of an automatic rifle.
Finding the appropriate scope and mandate for this peace process is key. I sometimes wonder if I am looking to accomplish too much with too few means at my disposal. That is a topic for much reflection as the weekend draws to a close.
The office continues to be closed until we get the call from the governor's office that we have the "all clear" to return. I am hoping for good news early Monday morning and planning for a resumption of activities later that day.
To all my friends and family, happy and prosperous new year.
No comments:
Post a Comment