Arrow Left Arrow Right Camera icon set icon set Ellipsis icon set Facebook Favorite Globe Hamburger List Mail Map Marker Map Microphone Minus PDF Play Print RSS Search Share Trash Twitter Video Camera Youtube
Briefing 104 / Africa

Mali: Last Chance in Algiers

As the last phase of negotiations resumes on 20 November, the Algeria-led talks between the Malian government and the armed groups in the north should not be rushed as they offer a unique opportunity for a sustainable peace agreement.

  • Share
  • Save
  • Print
  • Download PDF Full Report

I. Overview

As northern Mali experiences renewed violence, peace negotiations in Algiers offer a unique opportunity to resolve the crisis. But after almost two months of negotiations, peace remains a distant hope. The Malian government and participating political armed groups have struggled to find common ground. Influential radical groups that are absent from the negotiating table are tempted to resort to violence to derail the process. Conflict resolution will require reconciliation of competing interests regarding security in the Sahara, organisation of the Malian state structure and local balance of power between divided communities in the north. In the face of armed clashes, it is tempting for mediators to move quickly to achieve a deal that would only guarantee security in the short term. But rushing the process will not help. Time is needed to build the foundations of sustainable peace.

After months of deadlock, Algeria arranged international mediation that had long been handicapped by institutional rivalries. The mediation team led by Algeria should maintain this momentum and take the time necessary to build broad consensus for a future agreement. The document that serves as a basis for the drafting of a final agreement is a useful first step, but it offers solutions that have shown serious limitations in the past. It presents the crisis as a centre-periphery conflict without acknowledging the divides within northern communities. It does not provide for political and security institutions that would ensure equitable access to resources and responsibilities for all communities.

All actors involved in trying to resolve the crisis must learn from the mistakes of previous agreements, such as a lack of funds to ensure quick implementation; weak international guarantee mechanisms that did not fulfil their early warning role; and the neglect of the local balance of power in the north due to the focus on relations between the state and the northern regions. On the security front, the integration of former rebels into the armed forces generated a lot of frustration across the board.

During the last few weeks, northern Mali has experienced resurgence in violence, in particular because of jihadi activities and clashes between political armed groups, in violation of the May 2014 ceasefire. In the context of a worrying increase in attacks on the UN Mission in Mali (MINUSMA), it is tempting to strengthen the security response. However, the best option remains to try for a realistic, sustainable agreement. In Bamako, the shock caused by the Kidal debacle in May 2014 has not entirely faded away. Radical nationalist groups have not ruled out the military solution with support from international forces.

As the last phase of negotiations opens on 20 November in a climate of distrust, much remains to be done. Any further stalemate in the discussions will give rise to prejudice in both parties. No one wants to rush the signing of an incomplete agreement. Mali’s international partners, who are the future political and financial guarantors of the deal, should not condone a flawed agreement. Failure would also jeopardise Algeria’s laudable efforts to stabilise the region. On the governmental front, the longer public administration remains absent from the north, the more difficult it will be to fully restore the state’s presence. Meanwhile, insecurity in the north is undermining the political and diplomatic influence gained by the Azawad Movements Coalition, due to their victory over the army in Kidal.

To all actors involved in the negotiations, in particular their leader, Algeria:

  • take the time necessary to conduct the negotiations and in the meantime, find an interim agreement focusing exclusively on strengthening the ceasefire, for example through increased mixed patrols;
  • address conflict both within the northern communities, and between these communities and the state, in order to establish political and security institutions that ensure a fair and acceptable distribution of resources and political responsibilities; and
  • agree to hold popular consultations prior to finalisation of the agreement, and provide for formal endorsement through a vote by an extraordinary session of the Malian parliament and/or a vote in the regions concerned.

To the mediation team (Algeria, MINUSMA, African Union, Economic Community of West African States, Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, EU, Mauritania, Niger and Chad):

  • provide international guarantees to ensure funding and implementation of the agreement, including an international mechanism to manage donor funds jointly with the relevant local authorities, and an early warning and rapid reaction system in the event of a derailment of the peace process; and
  • prepare the international mediation team to become a contact group responsible for enforcement of the agreement, based in Bamako and the northern regions, once the negotiations are completed.

Dakar/Brussels, 18 November 2014

A fighter from the Coordination of Azawad Movements (CMA) stands on his vehicle covered in mud for camouflage outside Anefis, Mali, on 26 August 2015. REUTERS/Souleymane Ag Anara
Briefing 115 / Africa

Mali: Peace from Below?

Hesitant steps toward peace in Mali have been helped by the recent pacts signed in Anefis by pro-government armed groups and by rebel representatives. While not sufficient or without risks, they are rooted in local initiatives and tackle issues left out of June’s Bamako accord. This offers a serious opportunity to put the peace process back on track.

I. Overview

After a summer marked by renewed clashes in northern Mali, a surprising détente began taking shape in October 2015 following a series of talks between leaders of the Coalition of Azawad Movements (CMA), the main rebel coalition, and those of the Algiers Platform, the pro-government coalition. For three weeks, negotiations took place in Anefis, the site of recent fighting and a regional hub south west of Kidal. The talks led to several “honour pacts” signed on behalf of the major nomad communities in the region. In Bamako, the pessimism of the past few months is giving way to cautious optimism. This “bottom-up” reconciliation could restart implementation of the Bamako accord signed in June, itself stalled since summer. Nevertheless, these local pacts will have to be carefully monitored as the Anefis process also carries risks, including that of the reestablishment of a militarised political-economic system that was the source of much of the violence in the north.

The Anefis meetings represent a reappropriation by some local actors of a peace process until now largely driven by external partners. There should be no mistaking who took the initiative: these are less “traditional” community leaders than politico-military leaders and businessmen at the head of armed groups. Yet, this is precisely how the Anefis pacts can reinforce the Bamako peace process: by involving major local actors and strengthening their trust in a peace otherwise largely externally imposed. The Anefis meetings have allowed for important questions concerning the north’s politico-military elite to be addressed, including issues of trafficking, power sharing, and intercommunal rivalries. These are sensitive subjects that the negotiations in Algiers were either unwilling or unable to tackle.

The peace process nevertheless remains fragile. The 20 November attack on the Hotel Radisson was a stark reminder of the persistent threat posed by radical groups excluded from the peace process. Indeed, this moment of calm should not be confused with a return to sustainable peace. The current window should be seized as an opportunity to refocus attention on the implementation of the Bamako agreement, not as an end in itself, but rather to allow for genuine change of governance in Mali. A majority of actors, however, privately admit to having given up on this goal. Consequently, the risk remains that Mali could revert back to a pattern of poor governance and violence in the north. To avoid this, Malian parties and their partners should remobilise around an intelligent and ambitious implementation of the Bamako accord that, with time, will allow for a “demilitarisation” of economics and politics in the north. For this to occur, the following measures should be taken:

  • Mali and its main partners, gathered in the extended mediation team, should support local initiatives such as the intercommunal meetings, to allow for the extension of the Anefis process beyond political-military elites. In parallel, they should maintain a right to prosecute important criminals, specifically those involved in arms and drug trafficking, regardless of their participation in the process.
  • The same actors should prioritise demobilisation, disarmament and reintegration (DDR). In doing so, Malian parties should adhere to the text of the Bamako accord, specifically concerning the mechanisms for the interim period, and the UN mission, MINUSMA focus on the logistical and political preparation of the DDR process.
  • In Bamako, Malian parties and the international mediation team must clarify each actor’s role in the implementation and follow-up of the peace agreement. They should also restart discussions on the creation of a government of national unity in order to reinforce the peace process and facilitate the implementation of the accord.
  • This period of reduced tensions should, in sum, be seized upon to break with the governance problems of the past: development projects in the north must be accompanied by concrete mechanisms to fight corruption and guarantee that investments benefit local populations, rather than just the elites. The government in turn must cease the politics of division that fuel the “militarisation” of society and threaten the security of the Malian state.

Dakar/Brussels, 14 December 2015